Big Freeze Means Global Warming Is Worse Than Ever, Alarmists Warn

AP/Alastair Grant

Swathes of Europe and North America have been hit by blizzards. They’re having snowball fights outside the Colosseum in Rome. Scotland is closed. The sheep outside my garden are buried in white stuff.

So how lucky we are at times like these to have the liberal media explain to us dullards what’s really going on.


Yes. How could we ever have doubted it? All this freezing weather we’ve been having is, of course, yet another sign that global warming is real. And anyway, we shouldn’t take any notice of all this white stuff that is shutting down schools, making journeys impossible, and generally freezing our asses off. Rather, we should be focusing our attention on what’s happening way to the north where no one actually lives. Apparently.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Even Greenies Admit Paris Climate Talks Were a Total Waste of Time

No binding commitments have been made; all the countries in the world (apart from Britain) are free to emit as much carbon dioxide as they choose; the only thing everyone has agreed on is that they really, really care about global CO2 levels and that one day, maybe tomorrow, maybe mañana, they might do something about it. In other words, the 150 leaders and 40,000 delegates really would have been better off staying at home.

That’s the pessimistic view.

The more optimistic view is that it was worth it just so we could all enjoy the wailings and lamentations of disappointed greenies, throwing their toys out of the pram.

Here’s James Hansen, NASA’s former in-house activist and the man who invented global warming hysteria:

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

I never thought I’d say this but Hansen is totally right here. It was all bullshit.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

George Monbiot’s Obesity Solution: Punish the Thin!

August 12, 2015

Obesity is an incurable disease says the Guardian’s George Monbiot. No really, he goes on. It’s not only “more addictive than crack cocaine.” But also it’s quite like “cancer.”

Gosh, how I love George Monbiot! Is he not such a darling, wonderful thing?

I like his new byline photograph – still unsmiling, still austere, still wholesome and chunky-knit but now with the Wrinkles of Experience and the Deep Frown of Pained Wisdom.

I like his heroic abstinence from frivolity or mirth, redolent of one of those marvelously austere Scandinavian churches and lots of distinguished German philosophers, probably. He’s like a living version of that And When Did You Last See Your Father? painting, only without the belly laughs. And also remarkably like the Hon. Sir Jonathan Porritt, it occurs.

I like the fact that he went to Stowe – when Stoics, as a rule, are such jolly, thick-but-hugely-likeable beagling types.

I like the fact that he once wrote an article – God, I feel so sorry for George Monbiot – defending him when he got into trouble when he said something legally questionable about someone on Twitter. And I like even more the fact that I meant every word, which I think speaks volumes about what a generous-spirited person I am and about how I will always put high moral principle before petty feuds.

But most of all I like the fact that he keeps writing such fantastically wrongheaded nonsense which I am freely able to attack because George Monbiot remains a distinguished columnist, rated by many, well-remunerated, and accorded many a high platform at eco-conferences and suchlike across the whole of Gaia’s world – so no one can accuse me of “punching down.”

Anyway, George’s latest. His line is that because some new study has come out in a fancy sounding journal – Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews – saying that people can get addicted to eating, and because once you become obese it’s much harder to lose weight (once you’re there, 98.3 per cent of men and 97.8 per cent of women never return, apparently) that therefore we should stop being horrid to fat people because they JUST CAN’T HELP IT.

I’m with him on the ‘being nice to disgusting looking people’ thing. The other day, I got talking to this bloke who looked like a filthy, smelly old tramp (as indeed he had been for the previous seven years) and he turned out to be an absolute joy. Also, I’m generally well disposed to fat people who appear as a rule to be jolly, who I know in my bones (call it male intuition) share my appreciation of food, and who – more to the point – could easily turn dangerous if you weren’t nice to them and just sit on you and squish you like a cockroach.

But when it comes to the as-bad-as-crack-or-cancer thing, I’m afraid George and I part company.

It’s not that I wish to diminish or ridicule in any way the difficulty of losing weight. I’m lucky enough not to have been born with the “big bone” gene.

My problems with his argument are twofold

a) if you want to lose weight, you can – just exercise more and eat less, as Katie Hopkins did on her My Fat Story documentary. (Sorry, but I absolutely refuse to believe that George Monbiot is not a massive fan of “The Hop”, as he probably calls her affectionately).

b) it expects us to share his terrifying assumption that if fatties can’t be persuaded to control their impulses then everyone must be made to suffer.

Here’s how he puts it:

Eventually the change will have to happen, with similar restrictions on advertising, sponsorship, display and accessibility to those imposed on the tobacco pedlars. One day, though not before many thousands have needlessly died, it will become illegal to advertise any food or drink that merits a red traffic-light warning. They will be sold only in plain packaging, with health warnings, on high shelves.

Then he adds, rather sweetly, as if even he thinks he might have gone a bit too far this time:

Does this seem draconian to you?

Unfortunately, it’s only a rhetorical question. George doesn’t think it’s ‘draconian’, it’s just plain commonsense, and he goes on with his characteristic lightness-of-touch and lack of dogmatism to explain:

If so, remember that obesity afflicts a quarter of the adult population, and is rising rapidly. It causes a range of hideous conditions, just one of which – diabetes – accounts for one sixth of NHS admissions and 10% of its budget. In what looking-glass world is this acceptable? If smoking demands fierce intervention, why not overeating?

This is the choice we face: to recognise that the only humane and effective means of addressing the obesity epidemic is to prevent more people from being hooked, by restricting the pushers – or to continue a programme of fat-shaming, bullying and compulsory treatment, whose only likely outcome is unhappiness.

Now ask yourself again: which of these options is draconian?

Which reminds me of the other thing I love about George Monbiot: his refreshing candour.

As I argue in Watermelons, the problem with so many environmentalists is that behind that cloak of bunny-hugging caringness they’re all basically a bunch of totalitarian kill-joys itching to transform the entire world into the Death Camp of Sustainability and Tolerance – with them, of course, as the jackbooted camp guards.

What’s so different, so special about George is that he really doesn’t bother to mask what he thinks with all that fluffy stuff. He gives it you straight. Whatever the situation, his answer boils down to: “More regulation. Less personal freedom. Now what’s the question?”

Truly for those of us on the opposite side of the argument, George is the gift that goes on giving.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  4. Just what is it that greens like George Monbiot find so offensive about prosperity, abundance, happiness?

One thought on “George Monbiot’s obesity solution: punish the thin!”

  1. apparently says:26th August 2015 at 10:28 am“If so, remember that obesity afflicts a quarter of the adult population, and is rising rapidly.”

    Odd that it only affects one in four (possibly?) westerners…

    The vast majority live elsewhere and remain uninfected.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

George Monbiot: The New Christopher Hitchens?

The road to soundness. . . .

George Monbiot's next incarnation

George Monbiot’s next incarnation

Many of the most brilliant Right-wing politicians, journalists and polemicists started out on the Left: Ronald Reagan, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, Paul Johnson, David Horowitz, Martin Amis, Toby Young, Clive James, Rod Liddle… This isn’t a route I’ve taken myself because I never went through an egregiously stupid phase. But I quite understand and forgive those poor young whippersnappers who did – and really don’t blame them, especially if they were only doing it as a cynical bid to get into the knickers of hot hippie chicks.

So three cheers for another trot – George Monbiot – who has finally seen the light. Well, maybe one and a half cheers more like because our George still has some way to go before achieving Delingpolean levels of immense and unimpeachable soundness. But he’s definitely heading in the right direction. Just read what he says in his latest column for the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.

First some context. Monbiot is greatly exercised by the position taken by some members of the international Leftist brethren on the genocidal killing of 8,000 Bosniaks at Srebrenica in 1995 and of perhaps 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. He is disgusted at the way they have tried to play the significance of these massacres down, which he considers a betrayal of the kind of principles he always thought Lefties believed in.

So attempts to downplay or dismiss this crime matter too – especially when they emerge from the unlikely setting of the internationalist left. I’m using this column to pursue a battle which might be hopeless, and which many of you might regard as obscure. Perhaps I have become obsessed, but it seems to me to be necessary. Tacitly on trial beside Mladic in The Hague is a set of ideas: in my view the left’s most disturbing case of denial and doublethink since the widespread refusal to accept that Stalin had engineered a famine in the Ukraine.

I first raised this issue a year ago, when I sharply criticised a book by two luminaries of the left, Edward Herman and David Peterson. The Politics of Genocide seeks to downplay or dismiss both the massacre of Bosniaks at Srebrenica in 1995 and the genocide of Tutsis committed by Hutu militias in Rwanda in 1994. Their claims are extraordinary: that the cause of death of the “vast majority” of the Bosniaks at Srebrenica remains “undetermined”; that rather than 800,000 or more Tutsis being killed by Hutu militias in Rwanda, “the great majority of deaths were Hutu, with some estimates as high as two million”, while members of the Hutus’ Interahamwe militia were the “actual victims” of genocide.

What has changed since then is that the movement to which I thought I belonged has closed ranks: against attempts to challenge this revisionism, against the facts, in effect against the victims of these genocides. My attempts to pursue this question number among the most dispiriting experiences of my working life.

Monbiot feels especially let down by two men whom he considered to be heroes of the Left:

I wrote to Noam Chomsky, a hero of mine, who provided the foreword to Herman and Peterson’s book, asking whether he had read it and whether he accepted the accounts it contains of the Rwandan genocide and the massacre of Srebrenica. Watching that brilliant mind engage in high-handed dismissal and distraction has been profoundly depressing. While failing to answer my questions, he accused me of following the Washington script (I have posted our correspondence on my website).

John Pilger, who wrote a glowing endorsement of the book, volunteered this response: “Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed.” The leftwing magazine Counterpunch cited my article as evidence that I am a member of the “thought police”, and that the role of the Guardian is “to limit the imaginative horizons of readers”.

Thus has this infectious idiocy spread through the political community to which I belong. The people I criticise here rightly contend that western governments and much of the western media ignore or excuse atrocities committed by the United States and its allies, while magnifying those committed by forces deemed hostile. But they then appear to create a mirror image of this one-sided narrative, minimising the horrors committed by forces considered hostile to the US and its allies.

Yes, George. Quite, George. This is why Nick Cohen wrote his brilliant book What’s Left. It’s why Robert Conquest quit the Communist party in disgust and denounced all those fellow travellers and useful idiots – from George Bernard Shaw to Beatrice and Sydney Webb and Jean-Paul Sartre – who continued to support the Soviet system long after its barbarities had become evident. Hello, George? Duh, George! This is what the Left is like and always will be like. It’s why some of us are not on the Left, never have been on the Left and take an awful lot of flak from the Left when we point these small details of fact out.

Empiricism, that’s the thing. Things are either true or they’re not true. And if they’re not true it is clearly wrong to go on believing in them for the sake of ideological correctness. That’s what Lefties are doing all the time and, as you’ve rightly seen in this case, George – though sadly not yet on the issue of, ahem, “Climate Change” – it’s pernicious, corrupting and morally reprehensible.

Anyway, lecture over, dear Moonie Woonie. (I may call you Moonie Woonie, mayn’t I, now we’re on the same team, sort of? Or would you prefer Mooners? Or did you have a nickname at Stowe you’d rather I used instead?). Looking forward to meeting you at the next Ukip conference. Maybe we could do a double-header on a panel on – ooh, I dunno, let’s pluck a subject at random from the ether. Energy policy?

Related posts:

  1. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  2. Just what is it that greens like George Monbiot find so offensive about prosperity, abundance, happiness?
  3. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil


I Have Faith in George Monbiot’s Sincerity, Whoever’s Paying Him

The other day George Monbiot of the Guardian had me round for the weekend at his country seat in Machynlleth, Wales. You’ll never guess what we had for dinner after a fine afternoon’s sport shooting the red kite which infest that region like a verminous plague. First, we had leatherback turtle soup; then a delicious tranche of foie gras à la Nigella; then a superb escalope of cruel-reared veal in a wild okapi reduction on a bed of endangered tropical hardwood; then

then finally, the pièce de résistance, candied polar bear cub paws marinaded in Château d’Yquem. Afterwards, the world’s third most famous Old Stoic (after Perry Worsthorne and his seducer the late George Melly) proposed a toast: ‘To the eco-bollocks that makes me my fortune!’

No, no, really, I jest. Granted, the world of eco-propaganda can be awfully lucrative, what with all the money sloshing around from advocacy groups like Greenpeace and from big oil companies like Shell trying to ‘greenwash’ their image by giving handouts to the Guardian environment pages. But not for a moment do I imagine that George Monbiot writes his paranoid, hair-shirt, anti-capitalist eco-screeds in order to please his paymasters. Nope, I’m quite sure the dear chap genuinely, sincerely believes every word he writes…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  2. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  3. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  4. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

2 thoughts on “I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him”

  1. Dismayed_citizen says:11th April 2012 at 8:16 amWell written, James!
  2. Nige Cook says:13th April 2012 at 12:13 pm“George Monbiot, who knows more about climate change that most of us could ever know, rather likes warm, sunny days. What Delingpole wanted to do here [suggesting that George Monbiot would probably ban warm days] was to remind his readers of Margaret Thatcher’s great disdain for what she called ‘the nanny state’ where everything that might harm us is banned.”

    – Aussie psychologist Dr Dorothy Rowe’s book “Why we lie” (Fourth Estate, London, 2010), page 234.

    Rowe’s book includes a huge amount of “climate change” evidence (which nobody will disagree with), but deceives by making no mention of natural climate variability at all. She assumes implicitly that 100% climate change is unnatural.

    Pseudo-science assumes “climate change” evidence by denying the ever present evidence of natural climate variability; the latter is not an unknown since there is evidence for significant climate fluctuations in all the data and statistical averaging is used by the IPCC to suppress the evidence for these fluctuations, producing a smooth hockey stick shaped curve. See Dr Spencer’s latest satellite data: which shows global warming stopped in 2000, 12 years ago. The mechanism for long duration climate variations is cirrus cloud cover shadowing the surface, produced by the Wilson cloud chamber effect (cosmic rays from the sun produce vapour trails, converting infra-red absorbing water vapour into sunlight-reflecting cloud droplets).

    IPCC fiddles H2O feedback parameters to fit its prejudices, starting off with the idea that 100% of climate change is due to rising CO2. It then uses the circular epicycle argument, whereby models are fiddled to fit the data using false implicit assumptions, and the “goodness of fit” through these two fiddled parameters is alleged to support the model.

    IPCC models assume about 30% of global warming is from CO2 and 70% is from H2O vapour (not clouds) which evaporates in response to CO2 and amplifies the overall warming. There is no inclusion of any natural climate change mechanism in any IPCC models, so they implicitly assume 100% of climate change is anthropic, and this delusion is the basis for selection of the feedback parameters based on fitting historical data, the “justification” being entirely dependent upon this denialism of any natural climate change.

Comments are closed.

Why the Precautionary Principle always works

My big idea

Has anyone else noticed that since the eruption of the Ejyerkslllbjorkscreeylllkkrctarslyllgrgleglugglug volcano not a single plane over Europe has crashed, been involved in a terrorist incident or caused any of passengers on board an aircraft any discomfort whatsoever?

I feel a Big Idea coming on. It’s a Big Idea right up there with David Cameron’s new Big Idea to corral all Britain’s old people into repainting youth centres, clearing up needles on drug estates, setting up new Green Job enterprises, and so forth.

I suggest we ground all passenger aircraft forever. On the Precautionary Principle.

Yes, I suppose there are bound to be one or two objections, as there always are when the Precautionary Principle is applied by sensible, not-at-all-foaming-gibbering-or-in-any-way-barking government science advisors like Sir David King, Lord Stern and Sir Liam Donaldson. Most of these grumbles, I expect, will come from exactly the kind of selfish people George Monbiot was talking about in a short film he made on the BBC’s Daily Politics Show the other day.

They don’t like to be told that they can’t fly to Thailand for their holidays. So because they don’t like the results people decide that the science must be wrong.

Yeah. Take that, Lifestyle-Enjoyers! That put you in your cosy, selfish, creature-comfort-enjoying place, didn’t it?

Anyway, I was talking about the precautionary principle and why it works. Below, I offer you the ultimate proof. (Tinfoil hat tip: Philip Foster)


The man in this picture is a former alien abductee. But it’s not going to happen again – at least it hasn’t so far, he reports – because he is now wearing a thought screen helmet, just like the one you too can create in your own home by following the simple instructions at Stop Abductions. Here is what he has to say:

“Since trying Michael Menkin’s Helmet, I have not been bothered by alien mind control. Now my thoughts are my own. I have achieved meaningful work and am contributing to society.

My life is better than ever before. Thank you Michael for the work you are doing to save all humanity.”

Now think of that thought screen helmet in terms of other fields where the precautionary principle might apply:

Keeping planes grounded to make sure none of them crash ever again.

Spending millions of pounds the NHS hasn’t got on Swine Flu vaccine, just in case.

Slaughtering millions of healthy farm animals rather than inoculate them against foot and mouth.

Spending $45 trillion in case the lies made up in Michael Mann’s and Phil Jones’s fantasy laboratories turn out to be true.

Do you see now, why the precautionary principle makes sense? When we apply it regularly all we have to lose is our money, our freedom and our sanity.

Oh, and if anyone feels like making me one of those thought screen helmets and send it to me, I promise to photograph myself wearing it, so you can see how very seriously I take this thing. As you should too.

Related posts:

  1. The Health Protection Agency is making a right pig’s ear of this swine flu “pandemic”
  2. Greenpeace and The Guardian: yet again, sticking up for the bad guys
  3. Swine flu: can we have our £1 billion back now, please?
  4. Money Well Spent


Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot | James Delingpole

April 19, 2010

You may have noticed the strong stench of troll lurking below this blog of late. (Hat tip Barry Woods)

And here’s the reason:

Sceptic alerts
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.

To sign up, enter your e-mail address in the box below:

You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles. We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy. You can contribute to as little or as many articles as you like, just dive in.

It comes from an organisation called the Campaign Against Climate Change. Its honorary president is George Monbiot; its vice-presidents are three politicians – self-hating public school socialist Michael Meacher; Norman Baker (who he?); overpromoted Green MEP Caroline Lucas; and its advisers include the usual crazed rag-bag of yoghurt weaving, Atomkraft-Nein-Danke loons.

Apparently the reason we sceptics and evil deniers are doing so well at the moment is because of all the massive funding we receive from Big Oil.

It has recently been revealed that Koch Industries, a little-known, privately owned US oil company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million. Closer to home, it has been suggested that Shell’s funding of an exhibition at the Science Museum may be linked to the museum stepping back from its earlier strong stance on climate change.

Also, we’re psychologically damaged and love making stuff up:

Those who actively promote climate scepticism are well networked, and have been termed ‘deniers’ rather than sceptics because many show scant regard for the facts, while seizing avidly on any error in the work of climate scientists.

Luckily, the Warmists have thought up a brilliant counter to our wicked plan to fill the world with lies and carbon emissions. They’re going to, get this, lurk at the bottom of our blogs and make snarky remarks and post links to RealClimate proving that we’re completely wrong. Hurrah! Thus, through the mighty power of the blogosphere will the world be saved.

Oh, and guess who the Warmist trolls (UK branch, anyway) think the most evil denier of all is?

Modesty forbids me from naming him. But here’s a clue from the home of impotent, sphincter-bursting libtard rage that is Left Foot Forward, in yet another piece on how to deal with Climate Sceptics:

For now, though, let me close with a challenge for progressive readers: one of the study’s more obvious conclusions was how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites. This is unsurprising for anyone who has ever trawled through comments left behind after any climate change article. By the time you read this, there will doubtless be sceptical comments posted beneath this blog, too.

So here’s what I’d like you to do:

• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts;

• You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science;

• Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or

• Refer to the discussions at RealClimate and Climate Safety.

Oh, and remember to check out James Delingpole’s column at the Telegraph. If any of it makes you angry, you might like to let him know. Did I say be polite? Scratch that.

Pip! Pip! Off now to eat some foie gras stuffed with truffles – courtesy of Big Koch – while I dream up a few more climate lies.

Related posts:

  1. Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!
  2. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  3. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  4. Monbiot: an apology

7 thoughts on “Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot”

  1. John of Kent says:19th April 2010 at 10:36 amWho would that be then?? It wasn’t me honest! ;-(
  2. Gus Walters says:19th April 2010 at 10:44 am”company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million.”
    How sad it is that not even a single coin has made it’s way to this denier. I feel slighted.
    Monbiot, who you are is discoverable. But what you are is unexplainable. James, you should be proud that you are an itch he cannot scratch.
  3. Sean says:19th April 2010 at 3:38 pmJamey boy, could you pass on my details to Exxon and ask them to make the check out to cash. 10 grand should cover it. As soon as it clears I will slag off those wanker warmers with wry wit and razor sharp sarcasm guaranteed to piss them off no end. I’ll deny anything for money even claiming that Pamela Anderson’s boobs are real and those that say they’re not are being paid by Esso.

    A good suggestion for the warmers would be to stop exhaling, as suggested by Al Gore in his Zero emissions statement. It would also solve the population problem these same people are so concerned about and get rid of quite a few of those anoraks that call themselves Greenies.

  4. Simon D says:19th April 2010 at 8:28 pmJames, you’re frequently incorrectly defining troll as someone who disagrees with you or points out your mistakes. It more accurately describes someone who posts inflammatory comments to get a rise out of others. You could well be described as a professional troll.

    While I’m here… Could you let me know why, in your previous post about Germans turning against climate change, you quoted the results from a poll question of dubious value while ignoring a question in the same poll that contradicted your argument? Did you not read the article your entire post was based on or did you deliberate mislead your readers?

  5. James W says:21st April 2010 at 5:27 am‘Climate Change’ is just another ‘issue’, ‘ruse’, ‘project’ call it what you will designed to help spread the ‘progressive’ thinking of the left into mainstream conscious and to provide ‘progressives’ with jobs.


    > Professional politicians (Westminster, Brussels, Strasbourg, New York)

    > Amateur politicians (quangocrats, councillors, activists, etc.)

    > Journalists

    > Academics including medicine

    > Health & Safety knobjockeys

    > BBC

    > ‘Big Charity’

    Now think…………..WTF do they produce? Answer? Judgemental left wing guff, rules, regulations and other ways to stop people getting on with their lives in peace, quiet and without being told what not to do and how to do it.

    Unfortunately, we had better get used to it – the left has changed its tactics, and dispensed with the immediacy of ‘shock and squawk’, they are now looking at imposing wishy washy state control and universal taxation by stealth.

    The global financial crisis was their 911………perfect opportunity to accuse anyone generating wealth of greed and anti-social selfishness, whilst beatifying any left wing idea as quite simply ‘the right thing to do’.

    They have claimed a monopoly on virtue – and decried the right as evil.

    Help. I despair.

  6. Russell Cavanagh says:22nd April 2010 at 8:12 amHave you read about the effort to get US media to agree on and dominate climate change talking points? See
  7. Nial says:29th November 2010 at 12:56 pm“Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts”

    Ho ho ho, “and use facts”.

    They won’t be arguing very long.


Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Copenhagen: The Sweet Sound of Exploding Watermelons

I take it all back. Copenhagen was worth it, after all – if only for the sphincter-bursting rage its supposed failure has caused among our libtard watermelon chums. (That’s watermelon, as in: green on the outside, red on the inside).

As Damian reports, on Twitter they’re all planning to cleanse Mother Gaia of their polluting presence Jonestown-style.

The Great Moonbat is sounding more unhinged than ever:

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

And Polly Toynbee is blaming the whole fiasco on false consciousness.

Most leaders in Copenhagen were out ahead of their people. Most understand the crisis better than those they represent, promising more sacrifice than their citizens are yet ready to accept – while no doubt praying for some miraculous technological escape.

Sometimes we’re inclined to dismiss Polly as a loveable comedy figure, what with her lovely house in Tuscany contrasting so amusingly with her prolier-than-thou politics, and the never ending japesomeness of her deft, lighter-than-air prose.

But you know what? When she reveals her true colours, as she does here, I think she’s really, really scary. Her whole article teeters on the brink of demanding an eco-fascist world government to save us all from ourselves.

She yearns, like a woman wailing for her demon lover, for the righteous apocalypse which will teach us the error of our ways:

What would it take? A tidal wave destroying New York maybe – New Orleans was the wrong people – with London, St Petersburg and Shanghai wiped out all at once.

What she really wants, though, as you see from the plaintive, yearning tone of this sentence is global dictatorship:

As things stand, politics has not enough heft nor authority.

One day, Polly dear. One day.

UPDATE: Christ on a bike! You thought Moonbat and Pol-Pot were barking. Wait till you read Johann Hari’s tearful summation in the Independent.

Throughout the negotiations here, the world’s low-lying island states have clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch their representatives – quiet, sombre people with sad eyes – as they were forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.

Does he mean the man in the bow-tie from Tuvalu who wept openly for his island’s fate but on closer cross-examination – as Andrew Bolt reported – turned out to live nowhere near Tuvalu (whose sea-levels, in any case, have not risen in several decades)?

Related posts:

  1. Exploding Watermelons: ‘Oh no, not another ruddy energy revolution?’
  2. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  3. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  4. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas


Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

For a brief moment I had a scintilla of respect for George Monbiot.

His abject apology immediately after the Climategate scandal was noble, proper, honest – and fittingly grovelling.

First he implicitly acknowledged that newspaper environment correspondents these days do little more than write PR handouts for the climate fear promotion industry:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Second, he admitted Climategate was a scandal which could “scarcely be more damaging” to the cause of AGW.

But that was three weeks ago.

Here he is in his latest column, back to his old tricks, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being a shill in the pay of Big Oil.

“Think environmentalists are stooges? You’re the unwitting recruit of a hugely powerful oil lobby – I’ve got the proof.”

He invites us to note:

“The contrast between the global scandal [George can’t bring himself to use the word Climategate] these emails have provoked and the muted response to 20 years of revelations about the propaganda planted by fossil fuel companies.”

In a separate article, he presents us with four case studies of how fossil fuel companies have used their evil petrodollars to corrupt and suborn the debate on “Climate Change”. (And see the difference it has made! That’s why Copenhagen isn’t happening this year; why the world’s governments aren’t still hell bent on spending $45 trillion of our money to combat ManBearPig….)

Well he has chutzpah, I’ll give him that.

But who is it that sponsors the Guardian’s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian’s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)

And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion – an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)

And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.

And which companies were the  CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There’s a clue in this line here: “Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.”

And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)

And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild’s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the “new world order” (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?

Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company?

Or how about this tiny $7o million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?

And what about the £6 million the UK Government squandered on its climate-fear-promoting Bedtime Stories ad campaign?

What about the billions of dollars Al Gore stands to make from his ManBearPig scam?

I could go on. Many of Monbiot’s readers already have below his blog, most of them ridiculing the absurdity and hypocrisy of his position. Here’s one:

Who is the bigger stooge, the unwitting recruit of the “hugely powerful oil lobby” or the one blindly willing to spend millions of billions on AGW plans for which no one has the slightest idea of whether they will work?

I couldn’t agree more. The other day, following our debate, Monbiot gloated that debating me was like “shooting rats in a bucket.” Is that so? Well I’d say that trying to argue with someone who plays as fast and loose with the truth as George Monbiot is like trying to wrestle an electric eel smeared with KY jelly.

Related posts:

  1. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  2. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  3. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  4. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat


On Plimer, Climate Change and the Ineffable Barkingness of George Moonbat

As Rod Liddle has noticed over at the Spectator today, the Guardian’s resident Climate Fear Promoter George Monbiot has written yet another long and foaming rant about his favourite topic: why he’s right and why everyone who disagrees with him is a heretic and a fool who deserves to be cast into outer darkness.

Now I have no objection to this tack in principle: I have been guilty of it myself from time to time. (Oh all right, always). But here’s one of the key differences between Moonbat and me. Most of the things I advocate are going to make you richer, happier and free-er. Whereas, if anyone ever chooses to take any of the self-hating Old Stoic’s ravings seriously, we’ll soon all be living in caves, travelling round in coracles, and dining on nettles and ground acorns, while gangs of fascistic Misery and Ecological Righteousness Supervisors led by the Prince Of Wales, the Hon Jonathan Porritt and Zac Goldsmith patrol the realm in their BioFuel-powered Aston Martins whipping us (but not in a fun way) with organically grown birch twigs.

Anyway, that’s by the by. What I really want to do here is correct a misapprehension I’ve noticed among one or two blog comments of late: viz, that Aussie Professor Ian Plimer – author of Heaven And Earth – somehow chickened out of, or even lost his debate re Anthropogenic Global Warming with the Moonbat and that the subject was now closed.

What? Eh? Quoi? In your dreams Moonbat!

And I say “In your dreams Moonbat” because the only way anyone could possibly have reached this conclusion is by reading one of his magisterially self-deluding columns. (God they must have some stamina!)

Here are the facts. Prof Plimer offered to fly at his own expense from Australia to London to debate publicly with George Monbiot, fair and square, with no conditions attached.

Monbiot, as I reported before, was the one who chickened out. But he did it such a way as to try to present himself as the victor.

You can read for yourself in full the exchange of letters in which Monbiot wriggled out of the debate at the Moonbat’s website. A more perfect case of cognitive dissonance you rarely did see. The contrast between what Monbiot repeatedly tells you – that he won the debate because Plimer chickened out – and the evidence of their correspondence speaks for itself.

As promised Professor Plimer is now coming to London to lecture on Climate Change on November 12 at Savoy Place. If Monbiot is too scared to turn up and present his side of the argument, that’s his fault not Plimer’s.

Related posts:

  1. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  2. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  3. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  4. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy