Official: Icelandic volcano with unpronounceable name was caused by Man Made Global Warming – James Delingpole

April 18, 2010

You were getting worried weren’t you? 100,000 British tourists unable to get home from their Easter hols in the Med – possibly stuck there for as long as 10 days. The longest no-fly-zone over British skies since the days of Alcock and Brown. A terrifying plume of volcanic dust which swats aeroplanes from the sky like some cashmere-sweater-owner having a go at clothes moths. But still no sign of anyone prepared to tell us what we were all yearning to hear: that it’s all the fault of yummy mummies in their 4 x 4s, chavs taking too many cheap holiday flights, and evil, AGW-denying journalists encouraging people to boost their carbon emissions by writing hideous lies on their vile Telegraph blogs. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

Luckily, Scientific American – via Reuters – has finally managed to unearth one:

OSLO (Reuters) – A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.

Er well, sort of. In the next paragraph they’re forced to concede that the eruption below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier had nothing to do with global warming.

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

But they’re not about to let a good story go that easily:

Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.

Phew. So AGW was sort of involved. Tangentially. This means that the report is able to deliver a nice little homily at the end about the seriousness of Climate Change – and its causes. Just in case any of us had forgotten.

He said that melting ice seemed the main way in which climate change, blamed mainly on use of fossil fuels, could have knock-on effects on geology. The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas.

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  4. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: The Lawyers Move in – Those Scientists Are Toast!

God bless America and – can I really be saying this? – God bless the legal profession! Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, most of the world’s other governments (save the plucky Canucks), the United Nations and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to sweep Climategate under the carpet, the lawyers are putting this shoddy scandal where it belongs: in the dock. (Hat tip: Platosays)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Below – reports Watts Up With That – is a copy of the notice sent to the DOE’s Savannah office in South Carolina:

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists.

Here’s one example from the Climategate files:

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kevin trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Lisa,

That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

Mmm. I expect you can buy quite a nice no-strings dinner for $10,000.

And here’s another one of the Climategate emails from Dr Phil Jones.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Neville Nicholls” <N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

Gosh. I wonder why it can be that he doesn’t want congress to know about his DOE grant. Surely transparency and integrity were ever the CRU’s watchwords?

But if I were the DOE’s lawyers, I think one of the letters I’d most like to examine would be this one by the CRU’s former head Tom Wigley.

To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  – the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That  and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations.

Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented” and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia.

In 2007 Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog had identified serious inconsistencies in one such data record – the GIStemp record at NASA, run under the auspices of Al Gore’s favourite scientist James Hansen. He wondered whether similar rules might apply at another surface record, HadCrut, run by Phil Jones of the CRU. But when McIntyre put in a Freedom of Information request for data on the weather stations used by HadCrut, this was – predictably and quite deliberately, as we now know from the Climategate files – rebuffed.

Meanwhile another researcher, British mathematician Dr Doug Keenan had also smelled a rat. His suspicions had fallen on 84 Chinese weather stations whose data was being used by CRU to inform their HadCrut record.

In 1990 – as Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster – two papers had appeared on these stations, one in Nature by a team led by Jones, the other by a US scientist Professor Wei-chyung Wang, who also contributed to Jones’s paper. The Jones paper stated that HadCrut had chosen stations ‘with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times’. This was confirmed in almost identical terms by the Wang paper. Both papers referred to a report produced jointly by the US Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, making a similar claim.

As Booker describes it:

When Keenan examined this report he found that it contained information on only 35 of the 84 stations. But the locations of at least half of these had been moved during the period 1954-1983, in one case five times, by as much as 41 kilometres. This not only cast serious doubts on the reliability of their data but belied the claims made by Jones and Wang in their papers.

Bear in mind that Wang is one of the key players in the AGW debate – especially in the field of climate modeling and data analysis, as he describes in this biog. He is professor in Atmospheric Sciences Research at the University at Albany, in New York. He has received $7 million in grants from US federal agencies. And here he was being caught out in a case of alleged scientific fraud.

This is certainly what Keenan believed and submitted a report on the affair to Wang’s university. How did the university respond? It carried out an internal review, without interviewing – or even referring to – Keenan, and without giving any reasons, announced that the charges were baseless. For the full dirt on this cover up read this report at Watts Up With That.<

Now here’s that letter from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones giving his views on the affair:

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been …

“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation”
OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what
the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it’s not too late?

What we see encapsulated here is the corruption at the heart not just of Climategate but the whole IPCC process. Here we have the former head of one of the world’s leading climate research bodies apparently brainstorming with a colleague implicated in a fraud scandal on how best to conceal that fraud from outside investigation.

Meanwhile in a separate case, a US State Senator has written to Penn State University warning that its funding may be withheld if it doesn’t properly investigate the activities of its associate professor Michael Mann.

As Jeffrey Piccola rightly points out:

“The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world.”

Meanwhile in Copenhagen, the caravan rolls on. I’m not saying we’re going to win this one easily. Not with so many powerful vested interests backing AGW theory – among them the firms listed in this release from Open Europe: (Hat tip: Msher1 and Alexei)

EU environmental policy awards millions in windfall profits to oil companies and heavy industry
As national ministers meet this week in Copenhagen to discuss a new climate change deal, Open Europe has found that under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), oil and gas companies’ operations in the UK were granted a surplus of carbon permits worth €28.6m in 2008. For example, ExxonMobil received €4.3m and Total received €5.4m.

Meanwhile, heavy industrial polluters such as Corus received €47m, while cement firms Hanson and Lafarge received €17.3m and €20.2m.

Due to the economic downturn, many heavy polluters, such as oil and gas companies and heavy industrials, have been left with a surplus of carbon permits – essentially a free asset that firms can sell on to bolster their short term profits.

The glut of surplus permits on the market has driven down the price of carbon and led to a sharp increase in the number of permits being traded via carbon exchanges. Open Europe has found that the two largest carbon trading exchanges, European Climate Exchange and Bluenext, which includes members such as Barclays Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Shell, have earned a combined average of €245,000 a day from the trading of carbon permits.

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

Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires

London’s  Science Museum has been holding a special exhibition on ‘global warming’.

Have a guess what this gag-inducingly PC institution’s considered position is. Yes, that’s right:

The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.

To help visitors to its website reach the correct view on all this, it makes a series of bold but largely unsubstantiated assertions:

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

If we don’t reduce global emissions, the world is likely to warm by 2–5 oC by 2100 compared with the end of last century. The temperature difference between today and the last ice age is only about 3–4 oC.

Sea level will rise as the oceans warm up and expand, putting low-lying areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. Some small islands are already making plans to evacuate their populations. Many major cities, including London, are under threat.

and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:

Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.

Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.

You paid for all this, by the way, through your taxes.

But there is some good news. At the end of all this propagandising, the Science Museum asks you to vote for what it clearly believes is the only sensible solution:

PROVE IT! gives you the evidence to decide where you stand…

“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”

Despite having “seen the evidence” however it seems that the majority of contributors to the survey are still not convinced. When I checked just now the number of people voting “Count Me In” was 6396; but the number voting Count Me Out was 8551.

Expect to see a great deal more public disgust at this kind of officially-sanctioned eco-bullying over the next few weeks. Climategate was a game changer. We’ve had enough.

One Response to “Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires”

  1. bowmanthebard says:December 5, 2009 at 10:49 amThe last time I looked, the Science Museum had “pulled the plug” on the “Count Me In/Out” vote.Wrong answer.Nothing to see here — move along please.
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

The BBC: Al Gore’s UK Propaganda Mouthpiece

I wasn’t planning on bringing up my hideous encounter with Old Etonian climate-fear promoter Jonathan Porritt on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions again. It feels like picking at an old scab. But, if you’ve ever nurtured suspicions about the BBC’s persistent left-liberal-AGW bias, here’s a blog you absolutely have to read.

In it blogger TonyN gives the programme a thorough Fisking and demonstrates, pretty comprehensively I think, just how far presenter Jonathan Dimbleby allowed his instinctive sympathies towards Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism to hijack what should have been a balanced debate. (Hat Tip: world’s greatest living Kiwi Josie Jackson)

He notes, for example, the decided mismatch in the way Porritt and I were introduced: Porritt as a respected elder-statesman type; me as a comedy right-wing caricature.

Jonathan Porritt: Doyen of the green party, founder of Forum for the Future, and until a few weeks ago, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and the government’s chief environmental adviser, to which post he was appointed by Tony Blair a decade ago.

James Delingpole: comes from a rather different tradition, author and Spectator columnist, he reviles what he calls the deceit and lies of the anthropogenic global warming industry … He’s also scathing about left liberals who he is prone to see in his words as ‘stupid’.

I remember baulking at the intro even at the time. I don’t think left-liberals are necessarily stupid, just misguided, self-deluded and wrong (which aren’t the same thing at all). Problem is, if you try picking the presenter up on something he says about you right at the beginning it makes you look either pompous and self-regarding or it raises the possibility he’ll pick on you later on. Not that I should have worried about the second option: as TonyN suggests, Dimbleby did that anyway.

The question about climate change came from a Mr Gent, who asked, ‘Is the answer to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions blowing in the wind?’

On this programme the panel genuinely do not know what the questions will be, although they may be able to guess what is likely to be come up and do some home work. The chairman [Dimbleby] immediately slipped the poisoned pill to Delingpole, although he must have realised that pitting a journalist with no specialised knowledge of this subject against a specialist like Porritt could make for an uneven contest. And addressing the question first is always a disadvantage; there is nothing to react to and no thinking time.

TonyN goes on to quote in full what I was allowed to say on the subject, and what Porritt (Prince Charles’s chief climate-fear guru) was able to say on the subject. He is in little doubt as to who was given the more leeway.

When guests on Any Questions get abusive, Dimbleby usually cuts them off pretty quickly and tries to restore some semblance of propriety to the discussion. In this case he let Porritt continue, in spite of his repeatedly having suggested that a fellow guest was a liar.

As I’ve said before, I believe that Dimbleby is a decent, well-intentioned, likeable man who does his best to stay neutral. But he is also a paid-up member of the Green Alliance and is about to install a wind turbine at his Devon, much to the upset of some of his neighbours. This, I would suggest, makes him a somewhat parti-pris moderator for a debate on Global Warming.

But please, do be sure to read the blog at www.harmlesssky.org in full. Then make up your own minds and let me know what you think.

Related posts:

  1. Any Questions
  2. What is it that greens like Jonathan Porritt so LOATHE about nature?
  3. David Dimbleby interview: celebrating 30 years of ‘Question Time’
  4. Prof Brian Cox: prettier than Brigstocke but just as wrong
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate claims its first big political scalp

Australian conservatives have shown the way . . .

. . . by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “crap.”

This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The trouble began last week when Australia’s opposition Liberal party began haemorrhaging frontbenchers, all of them preferring to lose their jobs than be railroaded by their leader into voting with the Government on Kevin Rudd’s new carbon tax.

Aussie blog hero Andrew Bolt has the blow-by-blow details. Particularly stirring is his description of how the Liberals’ newly elected leader Abbott – the Mad Monk as the libtard MSM is already calling him – takes the floor and tells like it is about the ETS (Australia’s equivalent to Cap And Trade).

Already the lines are potent – real fighting words from the Liberals at last: Rudd’s great green tax “is really an energy taxation scheme.” In fact, it is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Power prices will go up, for instance.  “We just can’t wave that through the Parliament.”

To the public, Rudd’s scheme is “a great big tax to create a great big slush fund… run by a giant bureaucracy”. Already Rudd has overseen “a waste of money … worse than Whitlam”.

Too bloody right mate! (As they say in Australia where “bloody” isn’t a swear word s0 I’m allowed to use it as much as I like.)

Further useful background comes from Watts Up With That, with quotes from Abbott’s memoir Battlelines. Here is what he has to say about carbon taxes:

“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

And here he is on climate alarmists:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

Sounds a very sensible fellow. We can only hope that other leaders of conservative opposition parties – not naming any names – are listening to him closely.

Update: Australians have been counting the bitter cost of their failure to implement Kyoto, according to Terry McCrann in Australia’s Herald Sun. Here he ruminates on the miseries they have suffered by not being more eco-friendly:

A reader with a droll sense of humour has come up with an inspired way to achieve the same environmental effect as Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull’s Emissions Trading Scheme, but without the cost.

Simple, a National Apology on Climate Change. Same effect on global emissions as an ETS, but with zero cost.

More humour came less intentionally from an online commentator who set out to detail “What ignoring Kyoto has cost us”.

Two things it appears. Living in smaller houses.

Damn, if only we’d adopted Kyoto we could have been living in British-style shoe-boxes. Sorry, ‘cosy’ cat-friendly accommodations. Cat-friendly? Well, you can’t swing …

Secondly, not being serious about Kyoto has condemned us to cheap electricity prices. At least 50 per cent below the rest of the world.

If we’d gone for wind farms, nuclear, solar, etc, we could have had more expensive power over the past dozen or more years.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
  2. Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
  3. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  4. Australia shows us all the way by sacking its useless, pointless Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery

5 Responses to “Climategate claims its first big political scalp”

  1. Jeremy Crow says:December 2, 2009 at 8:46 amIt still screws me up that conservatives in Australia are called the “Liberal” party, and that I have to go to a European for good political commentary. Of course being a conservative American I happen to love everything that Australia has done for us over the years, and am happy that they are leading the way in the war against Green Communism!JC
  2. Hilton Gray says:December 2, 2009 at 11:23 amAustralian parliment just voted 41 – 33 to kill their cap and trade (ETS) bill!!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
  3. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:35 pmJames,I just recently started following your work and have already become a big fan. I appreciate your used of pop culture, wit and irreverence for the entire farce we know as AGW. Keep up the fantastic work.
  4. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:38 pmPS I live in a suburb a few miles north of Dallas, TX and we had a fantastic dusting of Global Warming Snow today, Dec. 2, 2009. Greatness!
  5. Duc de Blangis says:December 3, 2009 at 6:28 amWhile I’m heartened to see Turnbull deposed by an opponent of the absurd AGW theory, I hope that Abbott’s less libertarian attitudes are kept in check.
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11 | James Delingpole

November 22, 2009

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise from all the hysterical propaganda put out by the ecofascists of the AGW lobby.

Here’s the latest example from those silly trustafarian children at Plane Stupid:

And here, for those who missed it, is a spat I’ve had with the Guardian over an elderly US war veteran who apparently considers it seemly and apt to compare the piles of emaciated bodies he saw being swept into heaps when he helped liberate a Nazi concentration camp at the end of World War II with “Climate Change.”

Sorry but I don’t see the connection at all. 9/11 was a brutal terrorist incident which claimed the lives of 2,976 innocent people. The Holocaust was an evil Nazi genocide which led to the mechanised slaughter of six million mostly Jewish men, women and children. Climate change is an ongoing natural process which last few million-odd years been directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one.

Related posts:

  1. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics

5 Responses to “Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11”

  1. Emmess says:November 22, 2009 at 9:23 amI see a connection
    The co-leader until recently of the New Zealand Green Party is a Trooferhttp://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/jeanette_continues_to_push_911_lunacy.html#comments
  2. Hurf Durf says:November 23, 2009 at 5:01 amYou had every right to challenge that letter, considering no concentration camps were liberated in 1944 and Newsweak never bothered to go into any detail about the incident. The Gradiaun’s response and their quartwit commenters shows that you were right to do so.
  3. AJ McConville says:November 23, 2009 at 10:07 amThe point is whether you think climate change is happening the way most scientists say. He thinks it is, you think it isn’t.
  4. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:04 am“Climate change is … directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one”?Not even one?

    I have seen your blog and it is lame.

  5. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:15 amYou even boast your own “spat” at the Guardian–when the article clearly shows how wrong you were in your uninformed accusations.Lame, lame, lame!

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

59 per cent of UK population Are ‘Village Idiots’ Thunders The Times

Less than half the British population still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, says a new survey commissioned by The Times.

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Even more interesting than the result, though, is the Thunderer’s appalled reaction. In a leader that might have been easily have been written by the Great Moonbat himself, the Times quite simply refuses to accept that the growing band of sceptics may have a point. Instead, it accuses these ‘deniers’ of being idiots:

It is possible that the collective expertise of brilliant scientists could be wrong. The best minds in the world once held a geocentric theory of the solar system. Before the discovery of sub-atomic particles they believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Right up to the 19th century, serious scientists wrote recipe books for making animals. But no previous process of scientific trial, error and progress has ever overturned such a well-attested thesis. Lord Rees has reminded us that we now live in a global village and it is, he pointed out, probably inevitable that there will be some global village idiots.

The Times’s approach is not unlike that of a Marxist theorist berating the bourgeoisie for their “false consciousness”; or indeed, a Eurocrat deciding that when sovereign nations keep voting “No” in Euro referendums it doesn’t mean that the EU is an oppressive and unpopular construct but that the voters need working on a bit harder so that they come to the correct “Yes” conclusion next time. It is, in fact, another perfect case of what Jonah Goldberg calls Liberal Fascism.

It is also an example of just how increasingly out-of-touch the MSM is with the views of the wider reading world. Recently, the Times launched a poster campaign boasting that it offered more extensive eco coverage than any other newspaper. Some of the claims made on these posters – such as the one about the North East passage being used as a commercial shipping route for the first time (when actually it has been used since 1934) – have been shot down by the excellent Andrew Orlowski on The Register.

But even if these claims were true, are wall-to-wall horror stories about impending man-made eco-doom really what readers of the quality newspapers want to read these days? My suspicion is not. I’m presuming that the audience which reads and comments on blogs isn’t totally different from the one that reads newspapers in print form. And if that’s the case, then the MSM’s obsession with AGW is looking increasingly out of date.

If you don’t believe me, check out the comments below one of George Monbiot’s columns, or indeed, either of the two Times articles listed above. Commenters who take the Al-Gore-approved line are vastly outnumbered by commenters who believe the whole AGW thing is a load of crock.

And it will take a bit more than bullying accusations that they’re “idiots”, I suspect, to swing them round.

Share

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

2 Responses to “59 per cent of UK population are ‘village idiots’ thunders The Times”

  1. Lauren says:November 17, 2009 at 2:46 amHey James,Loved your newest post about the whole Global Warming issue there in the UK.I found your site, because I clicked on one of your articles about Obama and the whole Nobel Peace prize issue, and I was like “this is so awesome”. It had humor in it, but it was the truth, too, and I instantly became a fan.I’ll definitely be subscribing.

    I’ll be checking out your books as well. Hopefully I can eventually purchase them online if they’re not in a book store here.

    Please keep on writing.

    I’ll keep reading.

    All the best,

    Lauren

  2. Sebaneau says:February 5, 2010 at 2:50 amAnd four days later, the Climategate files were released on the Internet…

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

Official: UK Law Now Says ManBearPig-Worship Is a Religion to Rank Alongside Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Oh dear, it’s official (nearly): a belief in man-made climate change grants you the same anti-discrimination protection in the British work-place you’d get if, say, you were a Muslim and your employer forced you to eat pork, or you were a Christian and your boss insisted you sacrifice a big black cock at the stroke of midnight on the Winter Solstice in the middle of a ruddy great pentacle, or you were a Rastafarian, and your boss wouldn’t allow you to pop outside for your statutory religious reefer-break.

At least that’s the maddening situation that one Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford is striving to engineer with the help of our crazed, activist-lawyer-riddled legal system.

Nicholson has been given the go-ahead, on appeal, to sue his former employer Grainger plc for unfair dismissal under  the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 which cover “any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief”.

Nicholson, formerly Grainger plc’s head of sustainability, said he had tried to set up a “carbon management system” for the company. Yet for some mysterious reason we can only guess at, Nicholson says staff refused to give him the necessary information which would have enabled him to calculate the company’s carbon footprint. Grainger claims it got rid of Nicholson for “operational” and “structural” reasons. Nicholson, however, believes it was a form of discrimination against his sincere, deep, heartfelt and passionate views on AGW.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

I do hope he wins, for it will only serve to bolster the suit I’m currently planning to launch against my own employer UK plc. Under this new belief system I have invented – Delingpolism (currently with only one known adherent – but the rest of you are more than welcome to join) – anyone who proselytises on behalf of AGW, carbon capture, Cap & Trade or wind farms without being able to demonstrate with at least 95 per cent certainty that their cause has any scientific foundation whatsoever, must be exiled immediately to the Arctic Circle, there to dwell among the still surprisingly large population of ravening polar bears until such time as they are gobbled up, digested and excreted into the Arctic oceans ready to pass through the food chain and end up in the beauteous gullets of the mighty blue whale (or similar).

So far, my religion’s precepts have been completely ignored by my employer. I feel sorely discriminated against. Got to be worth a couple of million in damages, at least, wouldn’t you agree?

Related posts:

  1. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  4. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong

 

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

Sir David King Condemns Green Scaremongering; Herod Condemns Child Abuse; Osama Bin Laden Condemns Islamist Terrorism; etc.

Professor Sir David King – Tony Blair’s former chief scientific advisor and foot-and-mouth massacre guru – has spoken out against climate change alarmism. He has told the Times:

“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

Presumably he is no relation of the Sir David King who claimed in January 2004 in Science magazine that climate change is “the most severe problem we are facing today” and “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism.” (Hat tip: Benny Peiser)

Nor of the Sir David King who was reported thus in May 2004:

Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week. He said the Earth was entering the ‘first hot period’ for 60 million years when there was no ice on the plane and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life”.

Nor of the Sir David King who made the following claim as recently as June 2008:

If all the ice on Greenland were to melt, sea level would rise by seven metres. Is that likely to happen? Well I was saying six years ago unlikely [but] I’m afraid that that’s having to be revised… 80 percent of our human population lives within less than a one metre rise of sea level so imagine the destabilisation of our geopolitical system with a sea level rise of the order of one or two metres. And that is on the cards I’m afraid.

Nor, one hopes, is he any relation of the Sir David King who led the British delegation to a science conference in Moscow in 2004, whose performance prompted the following disgusted after-action report by the conference chairman Alexander Illarionov:

“In our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”

If I were sensible, moderate Professor Sir David King I would have stern words with this soundalike character: otherwise some people might be in danger of mistaking him for an hysterical fool.

Related posts:

  1. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  2. ‘AGW is real!’ insists Al Gore’s new soul mate Osama Bin Laden
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. Herod orders top UN scientists to investigate mysterious infant slaughter in Judaea

 

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

Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ Climate Change Ad: Most Pernicious Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Ever?

The government has spent £6 million on a hard-hitting commercial warning children of the perils of failing to check under their beds and in their cupboards before they go to sleep.

The advert – “Watch Out – Or The Bogeyman Will Get You!” – has been rushed out by Ed Miliband’s Department of Ignorance And Fear Promotion (formerly Dept of Energy and Climate Change)  in response to  “worrying” statistics showing that 52 per cent of children think the Bogeyman “will never ever crawl from underneath my bed and get me, no not even if I don’t check”, with another 32 per cent saying “Well I suppose I ought to have a quick look, just in case” while another 15 per cent do not know. Just one per cent agree with the government’s statement: “Yes I believe that the Bogeyman exists and that he represents a greater threat to my future than even Al Qaeda, Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy or racist language on Strictly Come Dancing.”

It shows a father reading a bedtime story to a cute little blonde girl, carefully selected because it is thought white middle class households will be most susceptible to this kind of guff. The bedtime story shows pets drowning and nice, middle class neighbourhoods like the little girl lives in being swamped by rising sea levels caused by Anthropogenor – a terrifying, black, fanged beast wearing a giant badge saying “Man Made CO2″, in order to illustrate that white middle class people very much like the girl’s father are largely responsible for this devastation because of their overuse of patio heaters and internet porn sites.

“Daddy, is it twue what some of my fwends at school say that the Bogeyman doesn’t exist so it’s OK not to check under my bed at night?” asks little girl.

At which point, the father snaps the book shut and slaps the little girl hard across the face.

“They LIE bitch!” he says. “The Bogeyman is REAL.”

Since its first broadcast on primetime television on Friday the Government has received numerous complaints from viewers protesting that the advert is brutal, wantonly misleading and, especially in the midst of a recession, the most spectacular waste of taxpayers money.

A spokesman for the Department of Ignorance and Fear Promotion admitted: “Yes we appreciate the evidence for the existence of the Bogeyman is thin and getting thinner by the day. But what you have to understand is that a lot of us here have invested a great deal of life and credibility in promoting the belief that the Bogeyman DOES exist and IS a problem. We simply can’t pull a U-turn like the BBC did last week on “Global Warming”. It would be too damned embarrassing.”

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story
  3. Our island story
  4. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

 

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