‘BBC’s Biased Climate Science Reporting Isn’t Biased Enough’ claims Report

July 21st, 2011

Before commenting on the BBC Trust’s report into the BBC’s science coverage, I thought I’d take the trouble of reading the actual document rather than the press previews. I’m very glad I waited because the finished product is an absolute corker. Let me take you through some of my favourite moments.

The report, as you may be aware, was written by my fellow Telegraph columnist Steve Jones. Besides being a fine and engaging writer, Dr Jones is a geneticist of  distinction and I would certainly never dream of questioning his judgement in his fields of expertise (notably Drosophila and snails). Fortunately, as becomes quite clear reading the report, climate science isn’t one of them.
Dr Jones sets out his ideological position fairly early on when he strives to bracket global warming “denialism” with a range of other syndromes: believing that “AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US government plot.” I’d love to see his evidence for this casual slur-by-association.
The distinction he tries to make between “scepticism” (good, up to a point, he thinks) and “denialism” (bad, obviously) is in any case a straw man argument. Of all the sceptics I’ve ever met or read, not a single one has ever striven to deny that climate changes nor that modest global warming has been taking place since 1850 (when we began emerging from the Little Ice Age).
What many of these sceptics – or deniers, if you must – do question is
a) whether – and if so by how much – this warming is anthropogenic (ie human-caused)
b) whether the warming constitutes a threat – or whether its benefits might in fact far outweigh its drawbacks
c) whether this warming likely to continue or whether – as happened without human influence at the end of the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period – it will be followed by a period of natural cooling
d) whether the drastic policy measures (tax, regulation, “decarbonisation”, the drive for renewables) being enacted to ‘combat climate change’ will not end up doing far more harm than good.
Jones concedes at one point that “A debate remains, and it deserves to be reported with as much objectivity as would any other unresolved issue.” But the apparent reasonableness here is certainly not borne out by the rest of his screed against sceptics, whom he caricatures as “proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth” – while neglecting to engage with the subtleties of the arguments mentioned above.
Sometimes, in his enthusiasm to put all these evil “deniers” in their place, Dr Jones appears to forget the basic rules of science altogether. For example, he describes how measured levels of atmospheric C02 have increased since 1959, and how “basic physics show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and how “three independent sets of records of global temperature agree that 2010 was one of the three hottest years since figures were first collected.” Dr Jones might be surprised to learn the “deniers” agree with him on this. Where they differ is over a fundamental scientific concept: “Correlation is not causation.” We are, remember, emerging from the Little Ice Age. So the rise in global temperatures is perfectly explicable in terms of natural climatic cycles. Furthermore, you could reasonably argue that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 as a driver of catastrophic global warming has already been “falsified” (or, as I prefer to think of it, torpedoed below the waterline, hit in the magazine and blown out of the sea). That’s because, as even the great Dr Phil Jones of the CRU has acknowledged, “global warming” stopped in 1998 (even as anthropogenic CO2 levels, notably in China) continued to rise.
Another category error Dr Jones falls into is in his use of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the appeal to authority. He tells us:
The IPCC concluded that it is beyond doubt that the climate is warming and more than 90% likely that this has been driven by human activity.
And he cites an open letter to the journal Science by two hundred and fifty members of the US National Academy of Sciences:
“(T)here is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
But as both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn could have explained to Dr Jones, science does not advance through “consensus”; and as Einstein could have told him, science is not a numbers game. When Hitler commissioned the book 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein coolly replied that if he were wrong, one author would have been enough.
If Dr Jones would like to learn more about these complexities, I would be more than happy to send him a free copy of my book Watermelons. One gets the impression that he hasn’t yet had much opportunity to find out what climate realists (as we prefer to style ourselves, “deniers” being – you know – a touch Holocaust-y) actually think or properly to familiarise himself with the terms of the debate. Also, the book’s quite well-researched so it might help him avoid repeating any of those embarrassing errors he makes in the report.
Still, as I suggested at the beginning, I’m extremely grateful to Dr Jones for writing his report because it offers such a sustained and brilliant rebuttal to the threadbare notion that our state broadcaster is in any way capable of being fair and balanced.
As Biased BBC notes, it has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position on “Climate Change”. In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote:
The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.
This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since. Though Dr Jones’s report argues that the BBC should from henceforward give less space to sceptics, it’s difficult to imagine quite how it could possibly do so. About the only occasion on which they have been given any air space has been on hatchet-jobs like the BBC’s feature-length assault on Lord Monckton, “Meet The Climate Sceptics”.
Dr Jones notes with concern Britain’s growing scepticism:
A poll carried out by the Cardiff University Understanding Risk Group in early 2010 showed in contrast that one in seven among the British public said that the climate is not changing and one in five that any climate change was not due to human activity. Fewer than half considered that scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.
The conclusion, however, he draws from this is not that this is a fair reflection of the lack of evidence to support CAGW theory – but that media organisations like the BBC aren’t doing enough to promote the “correct” version of reality. “The divergence between the views of professionals versus the public may be seen as evidence of a failure by the media to balance views of very different credibility. The BBC is just one voice but so many in Britain gain their understanding of science from its output that its approach to this question must be considered.”
In other words, Dr Jones thinks that the growing numbers of people in Britain (and around the world) who are sceptical of man-made global warming are victims of “false consciousness.” There speaks the authentic voice of the left-leaning cultural establishment. The BBC must be very proud: they chose the right man for the job.

(to read more, click here)


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

13 Responses to “‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report”

  1. Nige Cook says:July 22, 2011 at 6:56 am“Professor Steve Jones, the author of a report on behalf of the BBC Trust, says the Corporation should not go out of its way to challenge ‘consensus’ views among the elite. That is a dangerous argument … the BBCTrust is exactly wrong. Good journalism should be about testing and scrutinising elites, not uncritically peddling their propaganda to the masses.”

    – Daily Express editorial, 21 July 2011, p12.

    This climate change “debate” and bogus “science has settled” consensus is partly the fault of the critics for not winning the debate hands down, but flunking repeatedly with different quick-fix arguments like speculation about sunspot variations causing global warming, which act as strawmen for the mainstream to attack.

    Note that Professor Steve Jones likes courting controversy in his own subject area, genetics: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage-professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html

    Unsurprisingly, the BBC pick-and-mix politically correct “ethics” censors led them to ignore Professor Steve Jones’ informed and qualified genetics advice on inbreeding risks among first cousin marriages in outraged ethnic communities, while listening to his advice on global warming, a physical sciences subject he is unqualified in. :-)

  2. Nige Cook says:July 22, 2011 at 7:49 amThe so-called “evidence” for the causal link between CO2 and temperature is a huge pile of pick-and-mix indirect proxy observations: tree growth rings and satellite “clear sky” area temperature proxies that ignore the rise of atmospheric cloud cover causing negative feedback, by ignoring the tree ring data after 1960 which indicate increased cloud cover, and also ignoring the fact that satellite surface temperature data is restricted to cloud-free areas, not the increasing areas under cloud cover which are precisely the areas where the cloud cover negative-feedback is occurring!

    If they had any solid evidence, they could state the evidence, rather than merely stating they have formed a dogmatic consensus like a political party; in science the numbers of brainwashed followers are irrelevant, the facts are relevant instead. In politics, consensus vote size is what counts. This is politics. The only reliable evidence is the CO2 rise, and it’s trivial compared to evidence for natural CO2 variations in the past, as shown by GEOCARB models. All the temperature data was fiddled for the politically correct hockey stick curve by using tree-ring proxies to suppress temperature variability up to 1960 (tree rings are insensitive since hotter ocean increases evaporation and cloud cover, thus trees get less sunlight and this offsets the growth effect from natural air temperature variations).

    From 1960-80 they rely on weather stations, affected by local hot air emissions from growing cities and industry. After 1980 they rely on satellite data, which implicitly ignores negative feedback because you can’t measure Planck spectrum surface temperature through cloud cover, so you’re measuring surface temperatures for cloud free areas, which is another way of saying that you’re biased against negative feedback from increased cloud cover. Microwave temperature determinations of air temperature by satellites don’t discriminate the altitude of the air whose temperature is being measured, and you’re then biased in favour of measuring contributions from warmed air above clouds, not surface air temperatures under clouds which is affected by negative feedback from increased cloud cover.

  3. EyeSee says:July 22, 2011 at 9:58 amDelingpole, let me help you understand why Global Warming is man made. During the winter it is cold and people turn on their boilers and drive around in cars more. All this extra use of fossil fuels causes more CO2 to be produced, which the consensus knows causes temperatures to rise at any concentration. And what happens after a few months of this increased output? It gets warmer. Even you, surely cannot deny that it is not warmer today than on January 22nd. It is idiotic also, to believe that the Sun goes around the Earth; I mean what would it look like if it did? Evidence leads to consensus. The consensus is never wrong, because a group of people deciding on something are bound to be more right than one or two people. The Catholic church for instance and Galileo. You think one person challenges a long held consensus belief and it is changed, just because this one man proves he is right? No, ideas always come from large groups of people coming to the same conclusion at the same time.
  4. Nige Cook says:July 22, 2011 at 1:08 pmEyeSee: the objections against Galileo included his rudeness:

    “Volo, mi Keplere, ut rideamus insignem vulgi stultitiam. Quid dices de primariis huius Gimnasii philosophis, qui, aspidis pertinacia repleti, nunquam, licet me ultro dedita opera millies offerente, nec Planetas, nec , nec perspicillum, videre voluerunt? Verum ut ille aures, sic isti oculos, contra veritatis lucem obturarunt.”

    – Letter from Galileo to Kepler, 19 August 1610; http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?MODO=PAGINA&VOLPAG=10-423

    (“I want, my Kepler, that we laugh at the enormous stupidity of people. What do you say about the main philosophers of this Gymnasium, who, full of the obstinacy of the serpent, never wanted to see the Planets, the Moon, the telescope, although I was offering facts, expressly for them, for a thousand times. Really, they closed their eyes against the truth in the same way as that one closed his ears.”)

    “Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here, at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa laboring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.”

    – Galileo’s letter to Kepler, quoted by Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, page 106.

  5. colin powis says:July 22, 2011 at 9:19 pmIt’s about time that some one had the courage to say the obvious ; that the king is wearing no clothes and that GW is an obvious hysterical fraud …it is the return of LYSENKOISM ;science corrupted by politics and is all part of the Leftist political agenda
    hmmm….have you noticed how many of the GW promoters happen to be ”gay” ?

    This hysteria over GW , like any other fadd or fashion ,has it’s own momentum and shelf life and has clearly ”peaked” in the UK…the mainsteam public has become skeptical and tired of the hysteria and bogus predictions of the ECO-TWITS…we can expect these drama queens to become increasing shrill and deranged as they become sidelined and ignored…rather like an aging french actress who cannot accept that she’s not wanted anymore
    HA HA …the Bridget Bardot of climate change !

  6. Velocity says:July 23, 2011 at 1:01 pmPathetic isn’t it James
    As you say how could the BBC be any more biased, and it wants to get even more biased?!!!
    In the past 5 years I’ve never heard a single News report or staged cackle of invited crones on the BBC ever report a sceptic view. Think the first I saw was in Jan this year ob BBC World News (what a pile of propagandised crap that ’service’ is!)
    In stark contrast i remember being livid just watching the BBC Sat morning shows which ran no less than 4 news articles on pushing the hysterics agenda
    Dr Jones Report should have detailed in fact how the State and EC funded monopolist broadcaster, with 70% of the media market, despite over a decade of its pumping hysteria and crony science across the airwaves 25/7 has been such a remarkable failure in convincing the public of its message
    Clearly the BBC is failing miserably in its own agenda to convince people to think like it
    Group-think BBC.
    Maybe if the BBC was 100% bias rather than 99.9999% bias it’ll really swing that more than half the British public to the hysterical science agenda? Shit, they were only 0.0001% away from us all finding the truth!
    The ‘public service’ broadcaster is not a public service, more a corrupt tired zombie State monopoly with an agenda to grind and as Dr Jones reveals unconcsciously mighty disappointed at its own crap results
    Boo hoo ;”’((
  7. Velocity says:July 23, 2011 at 1:07 pmEyesee – go and see a Doctor, soon!!
  8. Andrew Ryan says:July 23, 2011 at 2:10 pmColin Powis: “hmmm….have you noticed how many of the GW promoters happen to be ”gay” ?”

    Fantastic level of debate. The true colours of the deniers show through in all its illiterate glory. On a par with the Nazi’s conviction that Einstein must be wrong because he’s Jewish. Why don’t you campaign to have pink triangles stamped on scientific papers written by gay scientists? That way you know you can ignore them.

  9. colin powis says:July 24, 2011 at 1:04 pmThe FACT is that many , if not most folk who are ”gay” tend to be on the Left ; and GW is classic Leftist ideology

    I don’t want to sideline this debate from GW into a hysterical diatribe on ”gay rights” with some drama queens

  10. Andrew Ryan says:July 24, 2011 at 6:55 pmThen why bring it up? And the large number of gays among Tory politicians is a simple matter of fact. Who cares? This says nothing about the veracity of the science either way, and one certainly doesn’t need to be a queen, a Queen, a lefty or a drama anything to point this out.
  11. Andrew Ryan says:July 24, 2011 at 9:52 pmOh yeah, and if you’re going to go for that argument, the vast majority of Young Earth Creationists – those who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old – are right wingers.
  12. EyeSee says:July 25, 2011 at 8:16 amAh, irony! How much better if I didn’t make a mistake! Of course I meant that you cannot deny that it is hotter now than on January 22nd. Still, it is valid I think to point out that ‘the crowd’ may observe the Sun moving across the sky and conclude that it circles the Earth because, look it clearly does. Hardly a strange belief, just not based on any proof of that belief. If of course, you could make money from saying the Sun circled the Earth then I guess we would still ‘believe’ that today.
  13. Nige Cook says:July 25, 2011 at 9:13 am“Oh yeah, and if you’re going to go for that argument, the vast majority of Young Earth Creationists – those who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old – are right wingers.”

    Newton was a “young earth creationist”, estimating from biblical chronology that the earth was created around 4000 BC. “All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.” – Newton (quoted in J. Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, Refuge Books, 2003, p 241). In fact, of course, Newton’s “discoveries” were made up in answer to letters announcing discoveries from people like Hooke (inverse square law of gravitation) and Liebniz (calculus); Newton had the habit of publishing only after others had “rediscovered” the same thing. One exception is his isothermal “law” of sound speed, which is false and is defended with falsified data analysis. Sound waves are adiabatic, so they compress and heat the air as they go, increasing their speed beyond that of an isothermal gas. Newton lacked the ideal gas equation of state, so it’s hardly surprising his theory was wrong. What’s more interesting is that he fiddled his selection of experimental data to “fit” his false theory, just like the temperature record has been fiddled to fit the AGW positive cloud cover feedback falsehood today.

    What Delingpole should do soon is to investigate and publish the fiddling of the temperature record, ignoring and pressing past the mainstream superficial “we need more research before we can comment” stone-walling obfuscation.

    Tree ring proxies rely on correlating air temperature to photosynthesis rates. Sunshine variation effects on photosynthesis due to cloud cover variations are ignored completely. This is a fraud because an effect of the negative feedback from water evaporation is increased cloud cover, which reduces sunshine and hence photosynthesis. Hence, there is a factual mechanism at play which ensures that tree ring proxies will suppress large swings in estimated air temperatures. As the air temperature goes up, more water is evaporated and carried aloft to form clouds, which suppress sunshine. So the enhancement of tree ring growth from increased air temperature is offset by the increased cloud cover, giving a tree ring growth record which – analyzed using the false assumption of constant cloud cover – gives a misrepresentative air temperature record with smaller fluctuations.

    This is an obvious explanation of why tree ring growth records show smaller swings in apparent air temperature in the 1960s-present than direct temperature measurements, or satellite data.

    Next we have the systematic errors in weather station data, which are used for the period 1960-80. Industrial growth and growing cities in this period produced direct local warm air emissions which affected the data. This 2C “urban heat island” effect has been proved experimentally; cities are a warmer than the unpopulated areas at similar latitude and with similar average weather, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island It has nothing to do with alleged CO2 global warming, but it contaminates early direct temperature measurements, in cities or downwind of industrial factories, power stations, steel mills, etc.

    Then after 1980, we have satellite data. You can’t measure air temperature in space, because there’s no air. So it’s down to indirect sensors of temperature, which again introduce bias into the data. If you rely on microwave radiation by air molecules, the satellite is measuring an integrated average temperature of the entire vertical depth of the atmosphere, not the sea level air. This is biased against negative feedback, which only occurs in low level air below clouds. The air near the tops of clouds is warmed by sunlight, so the microwave air temperature data excludes negative the feedback from cloud cover. It gives a misrepresentative air temperature, excluding the effect of low altitude air cooling from increased cloud cover.

    Finally, Planck thermal spectral emission temperature data for the earth’s surface gives a reliable surface temperature reading by satellite, but only for surface areas not covered by clouds. So it is biased in favour of clear sky areas, precisely “greenhouse effect” with no negative feedback. It automatically excludes the surface temperature contributions from the 62% of earth’s surface which is under clouds, and it is this area which suffers negative feedback (cooling), not the clear sky areas. So all satellite temperature data implicitly excludes negative feedback effects on surface air temperature.

    To my mind, this systematic “temperature record” fiddling is the key problem in the AGW debate. Since cloud cover has been increasing as CO2 increased, the effects of the increasing shadowed surface area is excluded from estimates of temperature. When you include these effects, there the overall temperature rise as a function of CO2 emission falls by as much as a factor of ten; negative feedback from a small increase in cloud cover cancels out the CO2 “greenhouse effect”.

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

This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’

Transferring money from the poor.



Last night I was rude to a Minister of the Crown. His name’s Greg Barker, he’s the Minister for Climate Change, and – or so he tried to allege in a flabby speech to the Conservative Future (formerly Young Conservatives) in the Commons last night – he’s actually a Conservative MP not a Liberal Democrat or a Green or a Communist one.

So I asked him what it was that first drew him to the Conservative party. Was it because he’d always nurtured a burning desire to drive up inflation? Or to increase fuel bills? Or to transfer money from the poor to the pockets of rich landowners like Earl Spencer and Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt? Or to destroy the British economy? Or to despoil the British countryside?

Whichever one it was, I suggested, he must be feeling so proud because thanks to the efforts of Greg Barker and “conservatives” like him, every single one of those objectives is now being quite spectacularly achieved.

You’ll gather I don’t think much of Greg Barker. I’m sure the feeling’s mutual. The difference is, I’m not part of an administration which plans to spend £18 billion of your money every year till 2050 “decarbonising” the British economy; I’m not the one who’s planning to cover the British countryside with 10,000 more wind turbines at a cost – again borne by the taxpayer – of £100 billion (plus another £40 billion to connect them to the grid), none of which will replace a single conventional power station; I’m not the one who is driving the British economy towards economic suicide by imposing on it a unilateral carbon reduction policy (the only country in the world to enact such extreme measures) which will affect not one jot the climate of the planet (our contribution to anthropogenic CO2 being about 1.7 per cent of the world total, diminishing each year as China’s industrial machine grows ever larger); I’m not the one who’s deaf to all argument about the absurdity of these measures. Whereas Greg Barker is.

To give you an idea of the intellectual calibre of the man who is helping decide our energy future (Greg is the man, incidentally, who pushed the Tories towards their “Vote Blue Go Green” stupidfest; he accompanied Dave on that silly huskies-and-melting-glaciers Greenland photoshoot) here are some of the points he made in his speech.

1. The Conservatives’ green policies belong to a fine tradition. After all, it was Margaret Thatcher back in the 80s who set the ball rolling on global climate change policy.

2. As an example of just how helpful and effective and Conservative-friendly green policies can be just look at booming California, which has the highest growth rate in the US.

The first point, though true, only tells half the story. It neglects to mention that Thatcher did so not because she had studied science at Oxford and therefore understood these things but because she had been nobbled by arch-Warmist Sir Crispin Tickell – and said things she subsequently bitterly regretted.

The second point is a bit like going on stage and saying Pol Pot was a cuddly, lovable fellow who never hurt a flea; or that Gordon Brown was a Titan among Prime Ministers; or that Polly Toynbee doesn’t have a lovely house in Tuscany. California has been RUINED by its environmental policies. Surely everyone knows that? Its coffers are empty. Unemployment is rising. And while its economy isn’t the worst-performing in the US, its growth rate is comfortably eclipsed by those of lower-tax states such as Alaska, Nevada, Wyoming,Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Louisiana and Arizona.

So why does a government minister feel able to stand on a platform and cite such blatant untruths to support his policies? Is it because doesn’t do any research? Is it because he is very poorly advised? Is it because he is exceptionally thick?

Well, no, I fear the real answer is even more depressing than any of the above. The reason that the Minister for Climate Change is able to stand on a platform and sell his climate narrative to Conservative Future without recourse to any meaningful, evidence-based data or coherent intellectual argument is this: reality is of no relevance to the Cameron government’s climate change policy. Our political class – of which Barker unfortunately is one – have made up their minds what they’re going to do and they’re not about to allow a few awkward facts to get in the way of their devastating plan to make the world a better place (even if it means destroying it in the process).

I need hardly say that Barker didn’t even attempt to answer any of the points I raised about the stupidity of the government’s drive for renewables, about the damage this will do to economic growth, about the Verso economics report showing that for every “Green Job” created in Britain by taxpayer spending another 3.7 jobs are lost in the real economy. That’s because he knew – as increasing numbers of us know – that there is no answer to them.

Sitting on the same panel was a Conservative MP of considerably higher intellect who ought to be Secretary of State for Climate Change but won’t because he fails to align ideologically with Cameron’s liberal consensus. John Redwood MP, it was clear from his informed remarks, understands perfectly well what the problem is.

He spoke of how our freedoms are in danger of being “mangled by too much law and regulation.” And he warned that Coalition’s unilateral carbon reduction policies represented a kind of “false greenery.” How could it possibly make sense, he argued, to close down our economy and congratulate ourselves on the CO2 reduction we’d achieved as a result if the net effect was simply to export our energy intensive industries so that other, less hair-shirt economies could enlarge their carbon footprints instead? Redwood – unlike Barker, apparently – actually understands business. He recently visited a factory whose energy bill is three times its wages bill: you can imagine how much that factory is going to welcome it when government enviro regulations push energy prices even further through the roof.

If it weren’t for the immense soundness of Conservative Future’s committee members (at least they seem to understand what conservative principles are even if Cameron’s nomenklatura don’t) I should have ended the evening almost suicidal with despair. As it is I just left it feeling very, very, VERY depressed. Barker’s dismal, lame, flannel-ridden speech, full of manipulative phrases like “we’re doing it for our children and grandchildren’s future” but entirely devoid of any understanding as to why it is that the Coalition’s environmental policies are so wrong and damaging in every way, rammed home with all the chilly unpleasantness of the “rectal snip” I once had to endure while testing for bilharzia at the London Tropical Diseases Hospital just how stupidly, ludicrously, almost comically out of touch our political class are.

Reality, facts, arguments, practicalities, evidence: to our political class these are nothing more than a tedious irrelevance. They’ve already modelled in their silly little heads how they would like the world’s imaginary future to be. Now all they want to do is act on it.

It was exactly this same kind of muddled thinking which brought Greece into the Eurozone. The consequences will be no less disastrous.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  3. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’
  4. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’

Posted on 21st June 2011Author jamesCategories Blog

2 thoughts on “This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Robert says:24th June 2011 at 4:19 am•Robert
    Regarding solar panels, and wind derrick’s (I use derricks instead of wind mills “Oil derrick” NIMBY) Liberal’s use lexicon to pull the wool over the tax payer eyes and ears to further their agenda. Their agenda is to live a very comfortable life on this planet without working, and we the tax payer support their elitist lifestyle and ignorant idea’s. I inserted links to articles in the Sac Bee today that should P*ss you off. The energy dept. is continuing their quest dig deeper into our pockets to fund this HOAX (alternative energy). Union owned retread “Brown” (California) is still trying to balance a budget without laying off permanently, the bloated numbers of UNION bureaucrats, and adjusting their retirement packages. And where are the legislators? They care so much, how about throwing in their own salaries, and expense cuts into the mix!?!?! Utilities say GREEN ENERGY bill COSTLY. Obama has given Billions in loans to George Soros’ Brazilian oil company that is drilling in our gulf. Yet our American oil companies cannot! WAKE UP! (And do not believe that non story days ago stating that Obama says the oil companies CAN drill. YES! And the cost for permits and the lag in the dept. energy, and the threats from the coast guard lay in wait. We are being starved of oil by our government. If you have solar on your roof, and a battery powered auto guess WHAT! It’s still being powered by a Hydro plant, natural gas, oil, and coal power generating plant!!! And when we have power outages; YOU HAVE NO POWER EITHER. It’s called (“Islanding”). You cannot direct power back on the grid during outages due to a safety protocol. During repairs, the grid will be safe for workers repair the outage. But! If you want you can have a multi thousand dollar battery backup system installed. And how do you dispose of the spent batteries? (Ah La: Nuclear spent fuel rods); conveniently left out of the argument. Ask anyone that lives OFF grid. And with $olar you have two payments: the utility provider and your banker. Also remember what the government thinks of you. They know better than you what’s GOOD for you. You, the taxpayers are stupid!









  2. Capt G Blomstrom says:27th June 2011 at 8:59 pmWhile I’m certain you and that special little group you refer to as friends cannot stop laughing at your ‘insider’ jokes the rest of the world needs more then childish tantrum.
    You have a unique opportunity as someone with an occasional audience to make a substantial difference in the dialogue(s) of the human race. Don’t piss it away. It’s your world (or toxic unlivable rock) as well.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening

A Farewell to Snow

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

As your boiler breaks down, your pipes freeze, your car won’t start, your Ocado delivery fails to arrive, your train is cancelled, your neck is broken after slipping on black ice and you lie in an emergency ward waiting for a doctor to turn up only to learn that they’re all off today because of the weather, you might be forgiven for thinking that all this has something to do with global cooling, changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the decline in sunspot activity perhaps auguring a new Maunder minimum.

But you couldn’t be more wrong.

“It’s all actually a sign that man made global warming is very much a live issue and that there’s more of it happening than ever,” says a top scientist, who holds the British record for securing grant-funding for global warming research projects so he must know what he’s talking about.

“Look at the Met office,” the scientist goes on. “They’ve just told us that 2010 is the hottest year since records began in 1850 and even though the stupid Central England Temperature record tells us something quite different and even though the year hasn’t actually finished yet they must know what they’re talking about and they definitely can’t have fiddled the data because the Met office is part of the government and they wouldn’t lie or get things wrong which is why that barbecue summer was such a scorcher.”

The big problem is, the scientist said, is that the public are really stupid. They think just because Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit said in the Independent in 2000 that soon there’d be no snow because of global warming, when what he actually meant was that soon there’d be lots of snow and that this would be “proof” of global warming. The interviewer just missed out the word “proof” that’s all because journalists are lazy that way.

Then the scientist issued a cut-out-and-keep guide of Signs That Show Man Made Global Warming Is Definitely Still Happening And That Cancun Won’t Be An Almighty Flop.

1. Warm weather

2. Cold weather

3. In-between weather.

4. Dark skies at night

5. Light skies in the morning

6. An unpleasant moist/damp/wet sensation when it rains

7. Ice appearing when the temperature drops below zero

8. Clouds rolling across sky in all sorts of funny shapes, some days like cotton wool, other days in streaks, and on some days not there at all.

9. Ursine subarboreal toilet activity

10. Strong new evidence of ultramontane sympathies at the Vatican

Related posts:

  1. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  2. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  3. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  4. Why Man-Made Global Warming is a load of cobblers; Pt 1

16 thoughts on “Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening”

  1. Galatian says:4th December 2010 at 12:31 pmClimate change is still happening. How do I know? Your old chum Marcus B was in rip-roaring form on The Now Show (3rd December) and Marcus definitely knows as he went to Exeter University and has made a career telling unfunny jokes.
  2. Orde says:4th December 2010 at 3:22 pmYes it was a bravura performance from ‘Prigsmug’ who knows all about the collecting and analysis of data, and what’s been happening to temperatures world wide this year.Funny how people like him who profess to fight established stereotypical opinions are so ready to stereotype others who hold contrary beliefs.
  3. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:11 pmOrdeThat’s because all British ‘comedians’ (if you can call endless boring piss-taking funny!) are lefties.And what do lefties do? They don’t think for themselves, they just swallow the Party line unthinkingly, unblinkingly and stuck on ‘repeat’ spew it out verbatim. Worker drones, the lights are on but nobodies home…. a room full of 1984… in lock-step with Lennon and not a new thought since (despite the endless proof socialism stinks every time).

    We need a friggin clear out of these tedious leftie loon comedians, isn’t the country a big enough clown show? But what chance when the Bent Broadcasting Co answers to the Gov’t and EU for their money and ITV are regulated to hell.

    Every possible alternate appears on Channel 4 the bleating scum raise their fat ignorant gobs to fever pitch

    After 14 years of Labour Marxism there’s warehouses full of material, everything from crappy public transport, killer NHS hospitals, shite education, cues at airports that can’t stop a guy with plastic in his y-fronts to mind-numbing health and safety.

    The British Totalitarian State runs like a joke in summer then falls apart into total national farce at 0 Degrees Centigrade when a snow flake falls . I’d make up some jokes but my tummy’s a little full of heavy duty battery acid!

  4. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:22 pmJames,Here’s some more evidence of that 2 Degrees warming;Prague, Czech Rep. -7 (7 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Munich, Germany -10 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Moscow, Russia -11 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    London England -2 (5 Degrees colder than Av.)

    When +2 above average is actually -7 Degrees colder than average you know the (leftie) loons have taken over the asylum… all 3 Parties are insane, and there is the Mental Health Act to work with?!!

  5. David Weaver says:5th December 2010 at 8:13 pmRemind us again James – what are your scientific qualifications? What journals have you submitted to? How’s your knowledge of Popperian philosophy of science?What’s that – you don’t have ANY scientific qualifications? And yet the Telegraph keep paying you? And you have the temerity to accuse those who disagree with you of being morons?Until you have a Ph.D. in some climate related subject, please be quiet and let the big boys and girls get on with their work. That is all.
  6. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 2:33 amDavid AGWeaver,I didn’t notice PhD after your initials? …don’t tell me, its IOU, you’re a socialist right?How society works (except lefties) is the public listens to the experts because they do their job and we do ours. If 2 sets of experts disagree we let them carry on fighting it out (its been 10 years now tooth and nail).

    Eventually time shows some experts arguments hold water over the years and some turn out to be Gov’t funded lying scumbag crones. 60% of the British public now don’t believe this shite, it may have something to do with year after year of snow after year after year of “mild warm winters” and “not a snow flake to be found” BS.

    Hasn’t Al Gore, the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachuari, NASA’s James Hansen, Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and the entire crew of hysterical climate loons at the Met Office and Uni of East Anglia not been caught dropping enough porkies (lies) for the penny to drop for you?

    I’d just like to know what initials were awarded to your brain you can’t work out the cheats (RIP for brain dead)???

    Answers on a Postcard to; Which Side Is Lying?, ‘It’s Snowing & Freezing (Again!!!)’ when they said it would be ‘Warm & Mild’ Complaints Department, University of East Anglia & Socialist Retards.

  7. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 12:17 pm@Velocity – I have a degree in Computer Science. I would think that would make me eminent more qualified scientifically than James Delingpole since a large part of my degree focused on pattern recognition in large quantities of information (for example large quantities of information dealing with… hmm, let’s see.. climate change for instance). What are your qualifications exactly?Incidently I am not a socialist. Since when did someone’s scientific opinions dictate their politics?Oh and kudos for the ad hominem attack. You’ll notice that unlike you I am attacking the issue not the person. I asked a simple question regarding James Delingpole’s scientific qualifications.
  8. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 12:48 pmDavidSo with your computer science Degree you KNOW how inaccurate global climate modelling is don’t you? You understand what all the sceptics are saying about GCM’s not even being able to mimick past Temps, and being inaccurate predicting future Temps, and being totally untrustworthy as a model to rely on for policy advise… don’t you?With your qualies and rigorous application of State educated mush you fully understand the sceptics point that GCM’s not factoring in cloud albedo as a negative (cooling) effect it is stupid, and double-dumb because it leads to runaway warming predictions. Precisely what the GCM’s are doing, consistently (wrong) predicting over-heating.

    You know this for a fact because reality has exposed this patent fact, as all the sceptics have said it would, contrary to the shrill inaccurate incompetent AGW’ers stroies. We’ve had the PROOF, 10yrs of Uni of EA and UK Met GCM’s predicting warm benign winters and we’re had (in reality) no such thing, quite the opposite, it’s freezing.

    Haven’t we?

    If the CGM’s predicted these colder winters they’d be validated. The patent hard cold fact is reality has invalidated the computer models, for precisely the reasons the sceptics said it would. AGW is invalid, as is tree ring sampling. Invalid junk science. That’s how science works, scepticism is how science works

  9. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 1:47 pmTo quote wikipedia – citation needed. Please link to the relevant journals that support your argument.I am curious – what do you think of Judith Curry? She is clearly critical of the methodologies of the IPCC but at the same time also has contributed much research indicating that climate change is still an irrefutable fact (only the outcomes are uncertain). How does she fit into your view that all scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy?I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.

    None of what you say detracts from the fact that I have more scientific qualifications than James Delingpole though.

  10. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 4:44 pmDavid AGWeaverThe fact you have greater qualifications than probably James and I combined should point you to the fact you’re qualified to uncover the holes in Co2 theory.But clearly it doesn’t give you more common sense. From my 20yrs in business I can smell BS in a very short time in the main. Al Gore, Pachuari et al just keep lying, don’t they? The AGW crews (crones) science just keeps falling apart at the seams, doesn’t it? The models keep being invalidated, don’t they?

    How much crapology do you need see in front of your very eyes for the falsehood of this AGW sham junk bunkum to sink in buddy boy?

    And no nobody dispute climate change. Correct. The problem is the AGW crew (crones) have been trying to alter the climate. The Hockey Stick tried to eradicate known science, known data to eliminate a reality, the Medieval Warm Period. Meanwhile at the other end they tried to inflame the warmth, until someone advised them their Temp stations were suffering from urban heat island effect.

    They’ve done more than prop up a dead-end theory, validate and invlaid measure like tree ring data, they’ve actually tried to re-write (pervert) actual known science.

    Yes it is a “global conspiracy”. But like all conspiracies it is individuals acting corruptly and spreading the disease through that most corrupt organism on the planet, government. It is Gov’t funding that has spread this disease. They should all be taken aside, individual by individual, and jailed for their part.

    In the case of politicians, it runs into £$€ Millions and Billions of public money defrauded from the public purse

  11. Frank Tavos says:7th December 2010 at 4:34 pmDavid AGWeaver:Give up before Velocity embarasses you some more. You lost the argument about 5 posts ago.
  12. Leigh Waters says:10th December 2010 at 1:41 pmCooeee there is no debate that globally the temperatures are rising. This isn’t a theory, this is something you can look back on recorded temperatures and plot them out on a neat graph and see that year after year GLOBALLY things are getting warmer (it’s not all about little ol Blighty). Here’s one of those graphs:
    http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83(note the obvious upward trend)The bit people are arguing about is whether it is man who is causing the temperatures to rise or it’s a natural occurance, not whether temperatures are rising at all!

    I suppose you have to think of something to blog about, so sometimes blog about things you know aren’t true.

  13. ge0050 says:10th December 2010 at 5:21 pmAGW = $$. Plain and simple. Using taxpayers money to move factories from places where labour costs are high, to places where labour costs are low. Factory owners used to resist this, because of the expense. Sometimes they even had to clean up the polution to stay in business.However, with ETS, the TRADING portion allows them to trade their “pollution”.It works like this. A factory in the UK is polluting. It will have to pay $$ millions to clean up. However, if it moves to India where CO2 emmissions are lower, then it can apply for the taxpayers to pay for the move under the ETS.

    This is a win win for the company. They don’t need to clean up their polution. The UK tax payer gets the bill for the factory moving. The workers in the UK lose their jobs and are replaced with low cost workers in India.

    The benefit to the UK is that that pollution is reduced. However, 6 months later the pollution from India is carried by the winds back to the UK, so in the end there is no change in global pollution. We have simply moved the source of the pollution.

    If this was really about reducing global emissions, the program would be called ERS. Emissions Reductions System. It isn’t. The program is ETS. Emissions Trading System.

  14. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:39 amVelocity…I think I am in love with you…and yes, I am a scientist who has worked with GCCM’s and knows that you are correct. Most super-computers today can’t handle all the data, let along give you a good trend on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.4.5 billions old vs 5,000 years of data?
  15. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:46 am“is still an irrefutable fact.I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.”I think I would like your degree to be given back, my tax money has been swindled to no good use. Does anyone see a massive error of logic here?

    A bit of Discrete Mathematics revision will do you good, David Weaver!

  16. Velocity says:16th December 2010 at 11:06 amLeigh AGWaters,Ever heard the saying, “Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics” ?Well you’re quoting from a world average mean temp, a figure no scientist can fathom how it’s arrived at.

    So while “little Old Blighty” is indeed freezing its not all on its lonesome is it? Take Cancun in Mexico, go to the World Weather Org website, check through all the spot temps in each country. Like Cancun you’ll find an average per place of some -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average.

    I’ve been checking over the past few weeks. here’s my list of -5 to -8 degrees colder than average; Geneva Switzerland, London England, Budapest Hungary, Berlin and Munich Germany, Prague Czech Rep., Moscow and St Petersburg Russia, Washington USA and of course Cancun Mexico.

    So tell me Einstein, if ALL these places are -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average, where the f**k is Earthtrends measuring its data points?

    Give me a country suffering 2 degrees warmer mush for brains????

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige! | James Delingpole

December 1, 2010


Some of you may be looking out of your windows right now and think that the white stuff floating down from the sky is snow. It is not, of course. What the white stuff actually is the purely imaginary creation of your false consciousness. You see it because you want to see it; because in your evil, selfish, refusing-to-change-your-pampered-Western-lifestyle way you think it offers proof that man-made global warming doesn’t exist.

How can I be so sure? Well, even if you were to discount what the experts at the Met Office are telling us about this being the hottest year since at least the Holocene Optimum, the experts’ expert tells us so.

Who is the experts’ expert?

Why shame on you for not knowing!

His name is Dr David Viner, he used to work at Britain’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit at the famed University of East Anglia, and in 2000 in the Independent he made the expert prediction that snow would soon become a “rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Well some of you cynics may scoff, but I for one am glad that we live in a caring, nurturing Steve Hilton and David Cameron style society which takes care of weapons-grade pillocks and throws more public money at them rather than one of those horrid, efficient Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan type one where people are answerable for their idiocies and don’t get bailed out with taxpayer’s cash.

That’s why I’m delighted to remind those of you who don’t know that Dr David “Nostradamus” Viner now has a plum job, funded by you and me, running a £10 million scheme at the British Council to raise awareness of global warming among young people abroad.

I’m even more delighted to report that as a man of conviction, he has not allowed a few awkward winters get in the way of his pet theory. Earlier this year – ie last godawful winter, not this godawful one – he told the Daily Mail that he stood by his 2000 prediction:

‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

And while we’re on the subject of expert experts, a reader (pls remind me who you are so I can hat tip you) kindly draws my attention to a side project of Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. Professor Anderson, you’ll recall, was the expert extensively quoted in the Telegraph yesterday arguing that the only way to save the world from the evils of man made global warming was by sharply reining in our decadent Western lifestyles and introducing 1940s style rationing.

Prof Anderson, I note, is a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management, which makes a pretty penny advising clients including Eversheds, Clifford Chance, Fujitsu, Henderson Global Investors, Ocado,and Virgin UK on how to reduce their carbon emissions. Since Greenstone’s function would be entirely redundant were it not for a regulatory climate whose existence owes itself the supposedly independent scientific expertise of research organisations like the Tyndall Centre, you can see why Professor Anderson got his job.

I hope Professor Anderson is properly remunerated for his expert expertise. It’s another of the things I really like about Coalition Britain: as men of the world, people like David Cameron understand that money is far too valuable to let ghastly tradesmen, vulgar entrepreneurs and other sweaty self-employed people get their filthy hands on too much of it. The job of government, the Whiggish Cameron and his crew fully understand, is to ensure that the economy remains just another form of political patronage. “Climate change” keeps money with the right people; the government’s people; people like Dr David Viner and Professor Kevin Anderson and that is entirely as it should be.

UPDATE: I’ve just had an email from Kevin Anderson about his role at Greenstone

My comment simply refers to my position in Greenstone. I DO NOT take any money other than basic expenses (2nd class train) from Greenstone. I spoke on Five Live yesterday evening and was offered £80  – which is being donated directly from the BBC to our research funds where it will likely be used by Tyndall PhD researchers. Over the past few years I have led on about £250k of consultancy along with giving talks for which a fee was proffered. As far as I am aware (a genuine and very rare exception may have occurred – the world isn’t perfect) I have taken none of this money. I broadly hold to your view about ‘elites’ taking money for all sorts of things that in my view they should not be remunerated. I take a view that I should survive on my very good salary (around £60k) and not accept additional funds and I try to persuade those around me to do so also. I can assure you, however much you may disagree with my analysis and conclusions on climate change, I am not working in this area to make more than my salary, and I can also advise you that since working in this area my quality of life has suffered as I make some reasonable effort to reduce my emissions. This has had (and is having) serious family, friends and work repercussions – but I think it is important those committed to the findings of their analysis should broadly abide by what they are requesting others to do.

I must say I’m quite seriously impressed with this. It goes without saying that I continue to think the cause Professor Anderson is fighting for is one of the most monstrous con tricks in history and that the damage the campaigning of institutions like the Tyndall Centre will do politically, economically, socially and indeed environmentally is almost incalculable. But I salute his integrity. Unlike, say, Al Gore, it sounds as if Prof Anderson walks the walk as well as talks the talk. I am glad to set the record straight on his finances and I’m really sorry to have maligned him on that score.

We’re on totally the opposite sides of the fence Prof Anderson and I think you’re a ruddy menace. But after what you’ve told me just now about “elites” – and your not-as-disgusting-as-I’d-imagined salary – I also think you’re a kindred spirit. Professor Anderson, you have just gone from being this column’s hate figure to Hero Of The Week.

One Response to “Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige!”

  1. Velocity says:December 1, 2010 at 5:44 pmLondon is -12 at the mo, Warsaw and Berlin are both having record freezes of -17 as is much of Europe and America.Of course this in only “weather” (this years temps). It’s not “climate” (10 year periods as defined by the UN’s IPCC).

    The UK’s roads have 9 million potholes and once again Councils are bleating excuses for being “unprepared” and “underfunded” by central Gov’t.

    Considering the vast fortunes spent by the very same incompetents on green this and that, Gov’t grafetti and road safety barriers, high wheel crushing curbs and the dumbest machine on earth, the traffic (jam) light, it appears once again the Gov’t are mis-alocating (p*ssing away) resources on all the wrong targets.

    Lord Young was right, the British have “never had it so good”. He was referring to the orgy of spending by the public sector and the armies of staff none of whom has ever added any value to any daily need of the citizen that pays for this clown show of incompetence and corruption.

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

Why the BBC Cannot Be Trusted on ‘Climate Change’: The Full Story

A story of hysterical warmistry

"Watermelon? Me? But I'm such a lovely old man..."

“Watermelon? Me? But I’m such a lovely old man…”

When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous  MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.

How then has it managed to breach its social responsibility so frequently and flagrantly?

Thanks to the combined efforts of the great Bishop Hill and the similarly wondrous Tony Newbery at the Harmless Sky blog, we now have the most comprehensive and thoroughly damning account yet of how the BBC became such an important part of a sinister political campaign to promote climate change alarmism. I recommend reading their report in full at either of their sites linked above. But here below are some of the highlights.

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

Government policy soon became BBC policy too. In Feb 2007, Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman had this to say about BBC “impartiality” on Climate Change:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

So when did naked bias on AGW become official BBC policy? Newbery and the Bishop trace to the notorious seminar mentioned before in this blog. (Can anyone find the link? I can’t yet….)

This was the one where the keynote speaker was Lord May, whose warmist bias is elegantly encapsulated in this paragraph of the Bishop/Newbery report.

Although Lord May is unquestionably a distinguished scientist, he is not a climate scientist, and he has been a dedicated and vociferous environmental activist throughout his career. In recent years he has expressed strong opinions on global warming. He has been a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund a leading environmental pressure group and during his presidency of the Royal Society an attempt was made to disrupt funding to climate sceptics. It would not be reasonable to suppose that Lord May could provide the seminar with either an authoritative or impartial assessment of the current state of the scientific evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

The BBC has done its level best to keep the details of the seminar under wraps. But we know that “30 key BBC staff” attended; that it was hosted by Jana Bennett and Helen Boaden and chaired by Fergal Keane. We also know that the seminar effected a distinct shift in BBC policy, because the BBC admitted as much in its June 2007 report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century.

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

As the Newbery/Bishop report drily notes:

There is abundant evidence that this is not an accurate description of the seminar.

No indeed. But this hasn’t stopped the BBC going ahead as if it were. The report details just a few of the more notable examples of the BBC’s flagrant pursuit of the Warmist political agenda:

(a) Climate Wars was a four part television programme which purported to describe sceptic arguments. It could best be described as a four-part ‘hit piece’, with sceptic arguments caricatured by a confirmed ‘warmist’ presenter and in one case, some serious misrepresentation of widely agreed scientific evidence. Despite this, a member of the BBC Trust has described this programme to one of us as representing coverage that balanced the more normal mainstream coverage of global warming, suggesting that the BBC Trust have been misled about how unbalanced the corporation’s coverage has been. We are unaware of any BBC programme that has allowed sceptics to present their own arguments without being filtered through a ‘green’ presenter or being subject to immediate rebuttal.

(b) David Attenborough’s two part series The Truth about Climate Change was broadcast in May and June 2006 as part of the Climate Chaos season. At no point in the series was there any suggestion that there are scientists, albeit a minority, who do not support the majority view on this subject, or that scientific understanding of the climate system remains very limited with major uncertainties still unresolved. Therefore the use of the term ‘Truth’ in the title of the series suggests an exercise in indoctrination rather than education. No claim could reasonably be made that this series was impartial about the science of climate change, but the DVD of this series is still being offered for sale on the BBC Shop website.

(c) The BBC’s partisan coverage of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was particularly egregious.

When the Summary for Policy Makers of the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) was launched on 2 February 2007, the 10pm News devoted most of the programme to this story. At no point was there any suggestion that anthropogenic C02 emissions may not be entirely responsible for climate change, a claim that the IPCC report did not make. All those interviewed on the subject, as ‘experts’, expressed complete certainty about this.

On the same evening, Newsnight went much further, with an assertion by Susan Watts that scientists were being offered thousands of pounds to challenge the IPCC report, and this claim was reiterated by the presenter, Martha Kearney. This was based on a report that had appeared in The Guardian on the same day. It later emerged that the story had no basis in fact and had probably originated from an environmental advocacy group in the US. The BBC would have discovered this if it checked out the story before using it; an example of very sloppy and inaccurate reporting or worse, a willingness to use a third party report because it appeared to confirm the BBC’s position on climate change. During the programme Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and an authority on the physics of clouds, was introduced as a climate sceptic. He was then shown smoking a cigarette while a voice over explained that he had a lot of contrarian beliefs including on smoking. It is most unusual for anyone to be shown smoking on BBC programmes now and the sequence was clearly intended to discredit his sceptical views on climate change.

(d) It is also worth noting that the BBC website has a dedicated area for environmentalists: The Green Room. Searching its archives papers related to climate change gives the following list of contributors: Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre), Bryony Worthington (from an NGO involved in emissions trading, ‘EU is not doing enough to deliver meaningful cuts’), Chris Smith ‘Climate change is very real’, Sir David King (green activist), Malini Mehra (green NGO), Andrew Simms (‘economic growth cannot continue’), Richard Betts (Met Office), Greig Whitehead (NGO, ‘For millions of people in Africa, climate change is a reality’), Tim Aldred (NGO. World leaders must listen to the people who put them in power and quickly make amends for failing to deliver a binding climate deal’). We have been unable to identify any sceptics invited to contradict mainstream environmentalist views on this site. The Green Room appears to exist only as an outlet for propaganda pieces by environmentalists.

Apologies that this post is so long. And there’s plenty more where this came, not least on the key role played by the BBC’s Chief Guardian of the Warmist Flame Roger Harrabin, which surely deserves a post of its own.

In the meantime, I would appeal to the wisdom and scientific integrity of the geneticist Steve Jones who besides being one of this newspaper’s most distinguished and readable science columnists happens to be chairing the official investigation into bias within BBC’s science covering.

It is to Professor Jones that Newbery and the Bishop have addressed their submission.

They conclude:

It would appear that, through the activities of CMEP [Cambridge Media and Environment Programme – the Harrabin outfit which deserves a blog of its own…] BBC Newsgathering has got very much too close to government, environmental activism, and the climate research community for its reputation for impartiality and accuracy to be preserved with regard to the science of climate change.

I don’t believe any responsible scientist, journalist or indeed human being could read this detailed, thorough report and conclude otherwise. Over to you, Professor Jones. We shall all be awaiting your verdict – in Spring 2011 – with keen interest.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America

5 thoughts on “Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story”

  1. Steve says:17th November 2010 at 2:10 pmWow… what an uneducated idiot! You’d think a journalist would at least understand the value of properly researching a topic instead of regurgitating the crap found smeared across right wing tabloids.
  2. TIM says:18th November 2010 at 1:21 amWow Steve, what an “educated” idiot! You’d think a Steve would at least understand the value of properly posting a response without regurgitating the crap found inside the mind of a delusional left wing’d mind.
  3. Mark says:18th November 2010 at 10:58 pm“Apologies that this post is so long.”

    Why apologise for that? Are you the one responsible for the fact that the average human has the attention span of a gnat? You must be very powerful!

  4. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:17 amJames

    1. The BBC has become what all Depts of Gov’t become: crones.

    2. The BBC achieves what all depts of Gov’t achieve, the exact opposite of what they say they will achieve. In the BBC’s case, they claim to be a “public service” broadcaster but of course they become a Gov’t propaganda broadcaster. They also do not represent the public but the political elite. They also do not fulfill their mandate to be unbiased. They become biased.

    3. Everything Gov’t touches (ie. manages, subsidises/funds etc) turns to crap.

    Only freedom and the free (competitive) market works.

    This is why we need the scum of society that is Gov’t and their monopolistic power structure out of broadcasting, healthcare, education, housing, the money supply, banking and central banking, transport and evrthing else Gov’t touches.

    Freedom & Free Markets: the only mechanisms that work for the progress of humanity

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 11:49 amHey Delingpole, is it open season? You’ve poured hate on wildlife broadcasters/scientists/enviromentalists/World War 2 veterans? Who’s next for you to attack? Dentists? Mother in laws?

Comments are closed.

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

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


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

We Need to Talk about Wind Farms…

“Energy prices may rise by a third”

A wind farm near the village of Bothel, Cumbria (Photo: Alamy)

A wind farm near the village of Bothel, Cumbria (Photo: Alamy)

“Energy prices may rise by a third,” says our disastrous secretary of state of energy and climate change Chris Huhne. Rubbish. They’re going to rise by a hell of a lot more than that before he is finished. Alternative energy, let us never forget, is just that: an alternative to energy. Wind power and solar power are so risibly inefficient that the only way they can ever be economically viable is with lashings and lashings of taxpayer subsidy. Nuclear power would be much more effective but Huhne has effectively ruled it out. Why? Because in Huhne’s bizarre Weltanschauung, it’s OK for the taxpayer to subsidise low-carbon energy that doesn’t work (wind, solar) but not low-carbon energy that does work (nuclear).

But it’s not Huhne’s breathtaking hypocrisy, ignorance and eco-fanaticism I want to talk about today. Rather I want to focus on just one aspect of it: his plan to carpet Britain in wind farms. What I should like to know is how many of you are with me on this one. It seems to me that at the moment we are sleepwalking towards the greatest environmental disaster of our lifetimes: in the name of alleviating something distant and imaginary – “Climate Change” – our government is now committed to the destruction of the British landscape. And what I’m not sensing, yet, is any kind of serious, concerted resistance.

We need a figurehead. (Not me, unfortunately. I ain’t got the time or the fame or the diplomatic skills.) We need somebody who can galvanise ordinary British people into saving their countryside before it’s too late. Ideally that figurehead would have been the Prince of Wales. But as I explained in last week’s Spectator the Prince has rather ruled himself out of that one. Alan Titchmarsh? He’s the only name that immediately springs to mind, but perhaps you can suggest others.

Next we need money to counter all the propaganda which is spewed out, much of it at taxpayer’s expense of course, by quangos like the Carbon Trust, by schools, by organisations like Renewable UK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association) – each of them repeating the same fundamental lies: that CO2 is a pollutant (not a plant food); that Man-Made Climate Change is a serious, pressing threat; that wind farms are the solution.

Above all, though, we need to stop kidding ourselves that if only we concentrate on how thoroughly marvellous Michael Gove is or what a splendid idea elected police chiefs are, this nasty, scary energy policy our Coalition has decided to foist on us will somehow magically evaporate. At the moment, we seem to be allowing their spokesmen to get away with all manner of nonsense, such as:

1. Britain needs to set an example on CO2 reduction.

No it doesn’t. At least not unless you believe in futile, suicidal gestures. China’s burgeoning CO2 output alone is more than enough to wipe out any paltry emissions Britain makes by going “low carbon”.

2. It will create green jobs.

Only in places like China, where the wind turbines are manufactured. There will be no benefits to the British economy, just a disastrous replay of the Spanish experience where for every “green job” created by government subsidy, 2.2 jobs were lost in the real economy.

3. It will provide “energy security”.

No it won’t. Because wind power is so unreliable, it has to be backed up by conventional power such as coal or gas. If energy security is really what we want we should go for more coal-fired power. We are, after all, sitting on an island of coal.

4. It doesn’t destroy property values, ruin views, chop birds to pieces, or create a low subsonic hum which drives anyone unfortunate to live by a wind farm mad.

Yep. Sounds like you’ve been taking your daily dose of propaganda from the likes of Renewable UK and Polly Toynbee, who thinks wind farms are rather attractive.

5. The future is low carbon.

Says who? What we need, now more than ever, is cheap power to generate the economic growth the world needs to lift itself out of the looming double-dip recession. Low carbon energy is, by definition, not cheap.

6. But what about “climate change”?

What about it? If it’s “global warming” you’re worried about, it stopped in 1998. Global cooling is a much more imminent and serious problem. Recent changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation mean that we’re now set for a 30 year cooling period guaranteed to make a mockery of all our fears about “global warming.” Yet here we are, embarked on a policy guaranteed to raise our energy bills to unaffordable levels, as we enter a period of colder winters.

This nonsense has got to stop. People, are you with me?

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  2. Wind Farms: the death of Britain
  3. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  4. The best article on wind farms you will ever read

Posted on 29th July 2010Author jamesCategories Blog

One thought on “We need to talk about wind farms…”

  1. Caroline says:7th August 2010 at 10:33 pmTOTALLY 100% with you about wind farms. We shall look back at some future date and think, ‘What on earth possessed us?!’

Comments are closed.

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

My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America | James Delingpole

May 27, 2010

Wow! Finally in my life I get to experience what it’s like to be a rock star and I’m loving every moment. OK, so the drugs are in pretty short supply. As too is the meaningless sex with nubile groupies. But what do I care, the crowd love me and I love them. God bless America! God bless the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change!

You’d think it would be quite dull, a conference of 700 climate sceptics (or ‘realists’, as we prefer to call ourselves) cooped up for two and half days of intense panel sessions (‘Quantifying the Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms’; ‘Green Eggs and Scam: the Myth of Green Jobs’; ‘Analysis of the Russian Segment of the HADCRUT3 Database’) and lectures (beginning at 7.30 a.m). But I haven’t had so much fun in years.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  2. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy
  3. ‘Climate Change’: there just aren’t enough bullets
  4. Power cuts are a much more serious problem than ‘Climate Change’


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

Why I keep banging on and on about Global bloody Warming

“Can’t you find something else to talk about?”

someone (a nice, sympathetic person, not one of my house herd of festering libtard trolls) commented below one of my previous blogs.

So let me explain, briefly, why I rarely can – with reference to the ludicrous story which was given the front page of today’s Times (formerly a newspaper of some note).

The story, enthusiastically headlined EU SETS TOUGHEST TARGETS TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING goes like this:

Europe will introduce a surprise new plan today to combat global warming, committing Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world. The plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.

The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.

The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020, according to a draft of the Commission’s communication leaked to The Times.

The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost £48 billion. The Commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels.

Can you see what’s wrong with this story? Clearly the Environment Correspondent author couldn’t, nor his news editors. If they had they would have reported it in an entirely different way – not, as a largely sensible proposal to deal with a real and serious problem which might nonetheless likely to run into various local difficulties. But as one of the most scandalous outbreaks of hysteria, credulousness and stupidity in the entire history of the human race.

Here’s the problem: the global economy has gone tits up. We are doomed. And nowhere is more doomed than Europe whose Monopoly-money currency is going the way of the Zimbabwe dollar and the Reichsmark, and whose constituent economies are so overburdened by sclerotic regulation and so mired in corruption, waste and the kind of institutionalised socialism which might work just about when the going’s good but definitely not now sir now sirree.

And what, pray, is the European Union’s solution to this REAL problem which has already led to riots and death in one country and which could well lead to many more in the horror years to come? Why, to impose on its already hamstrung, over-regulated, over-taxed businesses yet further arbitrary CO2 emissions reductions targets, which will make not the blindest difference to the health of the planet, but which will most certainly slow down economic recovery and make life harder and more miserable for everybody.

In Britain, David Cameron is wedded to the same suicidal policy – on the one hand brandishing £6.5 billion cuts in government spending as though this were a sign of his maturity and his commitment to reducing Britain’s deficit, while on the other remaining committed to a “low carbon” economy set to destroy what’s left of our industry and cost the taxpayer at least £18 billion (yep – almost THREE times as much as the pathetic cuts announced so far by his pathetic chancellor) a year.

Around the world, in the greatest financial crisis we have faced since the 1930s, our leaders are behaving like imbeciles. And nowhere is this imbecility more painfully manifest than in their approach to the non-existent problem they now call Climate Change.

That’s why I keep banging on about Climate Change. It is, unfortunately, the Key to all Mythologies.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  3. Now even Pravda admits the ‘global warming’ jig is up
  4. Global Warming: the Guilty Men
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations