If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him? | James Delingpole

Ben’s a “true believer”Goldacre

Ben Goldacre says I’m a “penis.” He has told his 85,000 or so followers as much on Twitter. I’m also “absolutely a dick”, he goes on to tell his fan base, lest any of them doubt Ben’s commitment to the view that I am some kind of penile appendage.

And do you know what? I’m glad. I’m glad first because a “penis” isn’t such a bad thing to be called. Mine, certainly has kept me very happy over the years; possibly given pleasure to others; allowed me to pee in all sorts of exotic situations which might otherwise have proved tricky; and helped breed two beautiful children.

But the second reason I’m glad is because it gives me a chance to tell Ben something I’ve been meaning to tell him for ages: that though he’s a delightful guy and a massive talent, he’s also a moral and intellectual coward.

The reason I didn’t mention this before is because I think we’ve been observing a sort of unofficial truce. Ben and I met years ago at a Goldfrapp set years ago at Glastonbury. We were both pilled up, we both worshipped Goldfrapp and naturally we bonded instantly. Even though we probably haven’t spoken more than a couple of times since, I like to think (and it may be that Ben thinks differently) we have an affection for one another which transcends our ideological differences.

The biggest of those ideological differences has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming. In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind: scientists in pursuit of the trillions of dollars worth of funding; eco-charities who depend for their donations on scare stories; leftists using environmentalism to further an anti-capitalist agenda; deep greens who believe man is a blot on the landscape and that he should be punished through tax and regulation; governments and NGOs who see it as a way of raising taxes, increasing control, and being seen to be addressing popular concerns; cynical corporations who wish to “greenwash” their image or make easy money through taxpayer funded scams like wind farms; and so on.

This, essentially, is what this blog is about. I write about all sorts of other stuff too, as regular readers will know. But mainly I see myself as a combatant in an ideological war in which I’m fighting against the tyranny of Big Government and fighting for free markets, small government, openness, honesty and personal liberty.  One way I can do this, I believe, is by exposing the lies and inconsistencies of those who claim the case for AGW (and related eco-perils) is stronger than it actually is. And also by relaying such new pieces of scientific research in this field that sound interesting. None of this involves scientific research, for I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be. Nor does it involve lying or making stuff up because frankly there’s no need. Yes I am polemical, yes I can be abusive, but that’s because I think righteous rage is a useful weapon in a war where so much is at stake: ultimately the freedom for us all to live our lives as WE choose rather than as the fascistic control freaks of the environmental left would prefer us to live.

Goldacre, on the other hand, takes a rather different view. I don’t wish to caricature his position and I’m happy to make corrections where I’m wrong. But I believe he remains committed to the idea that the scientists informing the IPCC’s assessment reports are decent men of integrity; that the computer models showing that man made CO2 is contributing to significant and potentially catastrophic global warming are reliable; that the massive and hugely worldwide costly action being taken to deal with this threat is justified. Ben, in other words, is a true believer in Al Gore’s “consensus.”

Here though, is what puzzled me – and has for a long time about Goldacre’s work. He has put his scientific training as a doctor, and his loose, readable, acerbic, funny writing style to excellent use, first with a popular Guardian column, then with a bestselling book called Bad Science. Goldacre’s schtick is scepticism. He looks at the facts and the evidence behind the junk science that so often appears in newspapers and makes fools of the charlatans behind it. Among his targets, much to my delight, has been a successful nutritionist whom I have always loathed because when I met him he was unconscionably arrogant and rude to me. Many of Goldacre’s campaigns I support. I like and admire what he does. But where I don’t respect him one jot is in his views on ‘Climate Change,’ for they jar so very obviously with supposed stance of determined scepticism in the face of establishment lies.

Whether Goldacre chooses to ignore it or not, there are many, many hugely talented, intelligent men and women out there – from mining engineer turned Hockey-Stick-breaker Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick to bloggers Donna LaFramboise and Jo Nova to physicist Richard Lindzen….and I really could go on and on – who have amassed a body of hugely powerful evidence to show that the AGW meme which has spread like a virus around the world these last 20 years is seriously flawed. And that, what’s more, there has been what amounts to a mass cover-up by most of the mainstream media – in the case of the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent for ideological reasons, in other cases through a mixture of ignorance, or “noble cause corruption.” This is empirical observable reality, grounded in much solid evidence. It is not something James Delingpole, rampant self-publicist made up to get a few extra hits on his tawdry blog. Even if James Delingpole were to stop ranting hysterically about these embarrassing truths they would not go away. They are here to stay and they are growing more apparent by the day. It’s something a man like Goldacre ought to be aware of and covering properly.

And this is what I mean when I talk of Goldacre’s intellectual and moral cowardice. It is certainly very true that the majority of his audience comprises left-leaning Guardian readers, predisposed to believe in the line – heavily promoted by the activist journalists who write for the Guardian’s environment pages – that AGW is a fact and that anyone who disputes it is evil. But stating something violently, aggressively and continuously – as the Guardian and its soulmates at the BBC and Independent do – doesn’t make it so. Nor does citing big names, like the Royal Society or NASA make something necessarily true either. This is a dishonest rhetorical technique known as the Argumentum ad Verecundiam: the appeal to authority.

There was a good example of the appeal to authority on TV last night. Some people may have seen it. It was a Horizon documentary in which a man named Sir Paul Nurse, by dint of the fact that he’d shared a Nobel prize in genetics, and that he was the new president of the Royal Society, was given carte blanche by the BBC to make several unproven assertions on climate change and global warming. One of them was to declare that the scientists exposed behaving badly in the Climategate emails were almost entirely innocent – just decent men getting on with their job. Another was to lend his weight to the idea that journalists and bloggers who have criticised these “Climate Scientists” are simply irresponsible “deniers” guilty of harassment and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Sir Paul will no doubt be delighted to hear that this message – which he helped promulgate in mob-stirring post in the Guardian’s environment pages – was angrily relayed back to me by many of his fans via poisonous emails today. The top bloke from the Royal Society essentially validated the view that Climate “deniers” are just ignorant, trouble-making scum. And his rentamob believed him.

But let’s return to Goldacre’s “penis” tweets. The reason he made them – credit where credit is due -was partly to point out to his fans that he thought the fuss over Nurse’s documentary had been somewhat exaggerated. Though talked up by the Guardian’s environment pages as if it represented the destruction of James Delingpole and everything he and his evil denier chums believed in, what it actually consisted off was this: Paul Nurse puts to Delingpole a slightly odd, unexpected analogy about Climate Change; Delingpole after an awkward pause says he doesn’t think much of the analogy; and, er, that’s about it.

Or, as Goldacre puts it in his tweets, relayed during the programme (H/T Bishop Hill)

delingpole clearly a penis, and he’s citing it for wrong reasons, but “peer-to-peer” review is not an insane idea

god, i’m really sorry, i like Nurse, but this is kind of slow, feels like a bit of a duty watch.

[Delingpole] is absolutely a dick. but that was weak, and if it was their killer moment, makes the press activity of today a bit ugly tbh

well, sorry, delingpole didnt do brilliantly on a question, and fumbled, but they say they interviewed him for 3 hours. thats the killer mo?

if that was the killer delingpole moment that the bbc have been crowing about all day then i’m actually quite unimpressed

I’m grateful for Ben’s honesty in this regard. But I think to cover his back and show he was “down with the kids” by calling me a “penis” was symptomatic of the moral cowardice I find in his writings on Climate Change generally.

Taking the standard BBC/Guardian/Independent line on AGW (and related eco-threats) is a very safe thing to do if your target audience is young and hip and instinctively green/liberal-left. It requires no effort, no thought, and certainly no courage.

If  Goldacre really wants to stick his neck out, why doesn’t he try arguing against a rich, powerful, bullying Climate-Change establishment which includes all three British main political parties, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, the President of the USA, the EU, the UN, most schools and universities, the BBC, most of the print media, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government, CNBC, ABC, the New York Times, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, most of the rest of the City, the wind farm industry, all the Big Oil companies, any number of rich charitable foundations, the Church of England and so on?

I do, almost every day. Not because it makes me money or gets me lots of high-fives from right-on Guardian fans. But because I believe in the truth.

Related posts:

  1. The problem with God is He thinks He’s Bob Geldof
  2. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming
  3. Does even Ian McEwan know what Ian McEwan really thinks about ‘Climate Change’?
  4. What exactly has the world ever done for Britain?

38 thoughts on “If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?”

  1. Stuart Naylor says:26th January 2011 at 8:27 amAfter the horizon program I am so happy, as it was enough for my long term Telegraph parents to switch papers. No more Telegraph and now a Guardian house.
    Keep it up James your doing a brilliant job.

    PS Ben Goldacre is just so right, I think its the shape of your head.

  2. Don Stuart says:26th January 2011 at 10:15 amStuart, when you grow up and become a big boy wearing long trousers you will look with disdain at your Grauniad and switch to the Telegraph.
  3. John Sturman says:26th January 2011 at 4:49 pmBen is spot on. James – leave true science to those that really understand it, keep quiet in your armchair and don’t be so naive to believe the tiny minority of mostly self interested economists and non specialist ‘scientists’ who try to tease out minor bits and pieces of research/statistics to refute the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. The OVERWHELMING body of global scientific research supports anthropogenic global warming. You are arguing that they are ALL wrong! The cost of doing nothing is MUCH greater than the cost of reducing man’s impact. You are also quite literally playing with peoples lives as the increasing regularity of extreme weather events brought on by global warming will kill people. Sadly, you seem the kind of person who can sleep soundly at night with this on your conscience. You may also have lost the future respect of your children as it is they who will suffer the majority of the consequences should we fail to act now.
  4. Owen Kirton says:26th January 2011 at 6:26 pmJames, I think that your response to Goldacres infantile name calling “sticks and stones will break my bones…….” was measured, fair and intelligent. I admire your patience and resilience in what must be constant attacks from the self righteous warmists. I am with you on everything you say on AGW and I urge you to continue saying it. It is only a matter of time. There are for more people with common sense than indoctrinated evangelists. We will prevail.
  5. Dom says:26th January 2011 at 10:13 pm“If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?”

    At the risk of stating the obvious… “correct”.

  6. Martin Lack says:26th January 2011 at 10:51 pmJames,

    As you have not responded to my email (submitted via your website “Contact me” page), I am forced to try this avenue to elicit a response… As you yourself admitted on the BBC’s Horizon programme this week, you are not a scientist; you are merely a self-appointed critic of science. Compared to this, even Tony Blair’s appointment as UN Middle East Peace Envoy seems sensible!

    Although it pains me to massage your ego in this way, I do feel you ought to take more responsibility to research facts (as they are) rather than just regurgitate disinformation (as the oil companies want you to)… Those who warn of serious environmental consequences for planet Earth if humankind does not radically change its ways are not trying to spoil anyone’s fun or freedom; they are merely pointing to the truth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. that energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and the reality of Entropy (i.e. that energy conversion leads to increasing disorder in the Universe).

    You and your kind could do a lot worse than start by reading “The Betrayal of Science and Reason – How Anti-scientific Rhetoric Threatens Our Future”, by Paul and Anna Ehrlich – see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Betrayal-Science-Reason-Anti-environmental-Threatens/dp/1559634847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296080071&sr=8-1#reader_1559634847

    Don’t worry; you don’t have to be a scientist to understand it!

  7. Nigel Kirkby says:27th January 2011 at 4:26 amIs that John Sturman as in Commercial Director at Bee Green Energy Ltd ?
  8. Martin Lack says:27th January 2011 at 11:05 amNigel Kikby: “Is that John Sturman as in Commercial Director at Bee Green Energy Ltd?” Even if it is, how about refuting arguments rather than making lame accusations of bias or vested interest (I think the oil companies are the really guitly party in that respect).

    I am no friend of the Catholic church but, when you find yourself arguing against them AND the scientific consensus (including bodies such as the Royal Society), it is time to re-think your position – or renew your subscription to the Flat Earth Society.

    The fact that climate change deniers cannot agree who to pin their consipracy theories on demonstrates how much they are like those who insisted the Earth is flat; then insisted it is only 6000 yrs old; then insisted that it is orbited by the Sun. In each case, their position eventually became untenable and had to be abandoned…

    Just how much climate change will it take to make you refusniks to come to your senses? John Sturman is absolutely right; I do not think your children will be at all proud of you.

  9. Nathan Perrin says:27th January 2011 at 1:47 pmWere you bullied at school, James?
  10. Chris P says:27th January 2011 at 4:31 pmJames just does this for the money. He sees the likes of Glen Beck, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin making millions of dollars saying absolutely stupid shit that is totally wrong yet appeals the ignorant and gullible.

    It’s what the religious crazies do. He will never change because he can make money off this scam.

    He is to be despised for his negative contribution to people on this planet.

    Libertarians are like that. Selfish.

  11. London Calling says:27th January 2011 at 7:46 pmJust checking. Nothing of any significance to be found from the professional trolls who hover around JD’s excellent blog. Really, why do you bother (apart from for the money)?
    Myself, I couldn’t give a t0ss if there are 1,000 comments rubbishing Dellers. Do you think that’s how people make their mind up on issues – from troll-posts? What a waste of protoplasm you are Chris P.
  12. Groper says:28th January 2011 at 8:05 amBlogs are what they are? Nothing of scientific value can be found from a man who openly admits he doesn’t have time to read scientific literature yet feels he can ridicule scientists. But what can you expect from a libertarian denialist? Except to get “intellectually raped” when confronted.

    So next time Jimbo, stop believing what you write and try reading a little before you start debating. You might fair better than a lemming with its brain removed.

  13. dee says:28th January 2011 at 12:54 pmI’m a little confused.

    1. Do you have any time for AGW or not?

    This from your piece – “Anthropogenic Global Warming. In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind” – would suggest that you do, but you’re saying is that certain groups and individuals are milking it for gain. Or do you really think that AGW is rubbish?

    2. Is it OK to appeal to authority on the issue of AGW?

    When Ben Goldacre and the chap on the Horizon prog do it, it’s questionable.
    When you do it in your article, to support your view that AGW is exaggerated, then it’s fine.

    An appeal to authority is fine if the authority is legitimate, of course. What makes your authorities OK and Ben and Nurse’s dodgy? The UEA lot are just a tiny number among thousands, and I don’t think their data can be written off entirely; how they presented it is the questionable aspect. It seems that some scientists are dumbing down their findings in order to make science more accessible to the public.

    I feel (because I don’t have any data to prove it) that AGW is exaggerated by some, because they benefit from doing so. It’s possible. People are like that. Equally, some may say that AGW is rubbish for the same reason.

    To suggest all the groups you mention in your article are lying, cheating and self-serving is a huge sweeping statement. Where’s the evidence? Your certainty worries me. Unfortunately, you look and sound too much like a ranting conspiracy theorist. It’s a shame, because we need a variety of intelligent, measured views from scientists and non-scientists. At least, I think so.

    Perhaps you just want to encourage debate. Well, you’ve done that, although there’s an awful lot of name calling on both sides, sadly. Must the argument be so polarised and adversarial? Do you think this approach will get to the truth?

  14. James Delingpole says:28th January 2011 at 1:10 pmDear Denise, thanks for your email but I don’t think you quite understand what “appeal to authority” means.

    As I thought I’d explained in my piece, it’s a rhetorical cheat whereby, for example, you say: “Well Sir Paul Nurse is a Nobel prize laureate and president of the Royal Academy and if he says it it must be true.” This was essentially the technique used throughout the documentary: he goes to NASA, is convinced by the glitziness of their equipment and the scienceyness of their credentials; he goes to the UEA and because Phil Jones is a fellow scientist, Nurse accepts on no evidence other than Jones’s say-so that his version of events is correct.

    Can you not see why this might not be damaging for the cause of truth and openness and scientific integrity?

    At what point do I cite anyone as an authority so superior it trumps other authorities? I don’t. All I’m asking is that when research is revealed to be flawed, the scientists defend themselves through open debate rather than bullying and cover ups and – yes – appeals to authority like the one we saw on Nurse’s disgraceful, dishonest hatchet job.

    How exactly is that unreasonable?

  15. Chris P says:28th January 2011 at 4:24 pmWhy should scientists defend themselves against a clueless journalist who can’t and won’t read graphs? Someone who is deliberately biased and confused about facts that are staring him in the face. You wouldn’t understand what they were saying if they tried to explainit to you. And, yes, science makes mistakes occasionally – that what science is all about.

    We don’t “debate” creationism because creationists do the same thing – they quote a stream of unsupportable garbage and expect the scientists to refute every clueless thing that comes out of their mouths. When the scientist refutes the first stupidity they come out with yet more crap.

    N0 – get your own freaking proof that global warming isn’t happening – collect your data give us graphs and explain how the atmosphere really works. With a libertarian brain like yours I’m sure you come out with something in ten seconds.

  16. Frank Tavos says:28th January 2011 at 9:27 pm@Chris P

    It’s clear that you haven’t the faintest idea of what the scientific method is. It’s up to the AGW alarmists, who are purporting to explain how earth’s climate works, to prove their theory. IT’S A THEORY. Get it? It hasn’t yet been proved. Read your Karl Popper.

  17. Seanos says:28th January 2011 at 11:06 pmYou agreed to go on the telly to talk about how science works with the President of the Royal Society and Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse and it turns out he knows more about it than you.

    So you look a bit silly in the programme and then you complain that you’ve been stitched up.

    Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

  18. James Wilks says:29th January 2011 at 5:42 pmThe sad thing about this situation Mr Delingpole is you just don’t get it, do you? if Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh say its right, it simply must be right by virtue of the fact they have said it is, forget evidence. This reflects to my mind a stance, which seems to be simply one of intolerance to any other opinions, views or even an acceptance that we have an ability to analyse and in fact rationalise any information on our own. We must agree or be ‘punished’, which is a bit Orwellian I think. I get the impression that in the world of the Singhacre Skeptics, there is no place for disobedience by having an opinion that contradicts their own.

    I think the real reason of the abusive smokescreen is that they must attack loudly and vehemently in a manner, which will hopefully prevent fair-minded people seeing that they are as fallible as the rest of us. I remember reading on a blog once where a guy was advised to be wary of anyone who claims to have all the answers, as they are either ignorant, arrogant or stupid, either way it was alluded that these people were dangerous to themselves or others. Does that apply here, who knows?

    PS, I have never read the Telegraph as until lately I had always taken the Guardian, but I must say having read some of the nonsense that’s been published lately, its time for a change. You have a new reader!

  19. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 7:14 pm“… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.”

    – J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1950

    “Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media … the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by.”

    – Frederick Forsyth, 2005

  20. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 7:16 pmI’ve just revised my video about the trifling little flaws in Sir Paul’s Horizon documentary:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=3Un7u2AZnjw&vq=medium

  21. Chris P says:30th January 2011 at 1:21 amFrank Tavos is clueless about science. Theory has two meanings – in the “theory” of evolution it means the consensus facts that are true.

    You people are just as clueless as creationists – you use the same old twisted words game.

  22. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 12:55 pm“Theory has two meanings – in the “theory” of evolution it means the consensus facts that are true.” – Chris P.

    “What is truth?” – Pilate.

    Chris, did you copy that straight from Orwell’s “1984”? Doublethink is: “to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies … knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it … to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

  23. Seanos says:30th January 2011 at 4:45 pmNigecook

    Thanks for the definition of ‘doublethink’. Here’s the definition of ‘scientic theory’, which is indeed different to the definition of ‘theory’ which is in general useage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    Frank Tavos is indeed clueless about science, as are you. Did neither of you stop to consider that you might not know what you were talking about before wading in?

  24. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 10:51 pm“A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    Seanos, Wikipedia is itself a consensus effort. Did it not occur to you that a consensus effort would be likely to produce a definition of science that is biased in favour of consensus?

    It fails to distinguish between the political abuse of “science” by authority which deliberately ignores, covers up or otherwise (perhaps using “peer-review”) renders effectively secret vital facts (“hide the decline”) and a theory which considers all of the evidence. It fails to cover the problem of anomalies. The definition of scientific theory is actually a big discipline all of its own, running from Occam’s Razor to Susskind’s fairies.

    The definition of a scientific theory as one which is “useful” to the scientists crops in in superstring theory, where it’s useful to investigate a 10/11 dimensional M-theory theory with its 10^500 different metastable vacua, since it’s impossible to experimentally disprove them all during your career.

    Like climate theory, superstring theory is here “useful” not in the experimental sense, but in the political sense. Ivor Catt makes the cynical-sounding but all too true observation that groupthink science is very easily corrupted, because scientists don’t live on air.

    ‘The President put his name on the plaque Armstrong and Aldrin left on the moon and he telephoned them while they were there, but he cut America’s space budget to the smallest total since John Glenn orbited the Earth. The Vice-President says on to Mars by 1985, but we won’t make it by “stretching out” our effort. Perhaps NASA was too successful with Apollo. It violated the “Catt Concept”, enunciated by Britisher Ivor Catt. According to Catt, the most secure project is the unsuccessful one, because it lasts the longest.’

    – Robert P. Crossley, Editorial, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 5, May 1970, p. 14.

    E.g., compare the Apollo project with the Vietnam war for price, length and success. Both were initially backed by Kennedy and Johnson as challenges to Communist space technology and subversion, respectively. The Vietnam war – the unsuccessful project – sucked in the cash for longer, which closed down the successful space exploration project!

    Scientist even in pure science have to ensure that whatever they do will not result in a P45. If that means building a theory that’s complete rubbish by the use of so-called “peer-review” as censorship of critics, then they’ll do it to survive, just as when the chips go down most people will fight for survival. Ethics are important, but they come lower down the Maslow’s list of human priorities than putting bread on the table!

  25. Seanos says:30th January 2011 at 11:24 pm“Seanos, Wikipedia is itself a consensus effort. Did it not occur to you that a consensus effort would be likely to produce a definition of science that is biased in favour of consensus?”

    Logic and comprehension aren’t your strong suit are they? The wiki article is a perfectly simple and straightforward explanation of what a scientific theory is. Here, read these:

    http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
    http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
    http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/scientific_theory.htm

    So we’ve now established that scientists use the word ‘theory’ in a very specific way and this is different to its collquial use, can we agree that no ‘doublethink’ is involved and that making posts without having any real understanding of what you are talking about is a spectacularly idiotic thing to do?

    I skimmed through the rest of your post because it looked like bullshit. If you actually have a point could you please try and make it succinctly?

  26. Nige Cook says:31st January 2011 at 8:52 amSeanos,

    ‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ – R. P. Feynman (quoted by Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, 2006, p. 307).

    “Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.

    Irving Janis studied a number of American Foreign policy ‘disasters’ such as failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) when the US administration sought to overthrow Cuban Government of Fidel Castro; and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions were made largely due to the cohesive nature of the committees which made them. Moreover, that cohesiveness prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. As defined by Janis, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink (your beloved consensus-based wikipedia is EXCELLENT when it defines groupthink, which is consensus).

  27. Seanos says:31st January 2011 at 8:49 pmIf I were you Nige I’d have a long lie down.
  28. Frank Tavos says:31st January 2011 at 10:07 pm…and if I were you Seanos, I’d fuck off.
  29. Tim says:1st February 2011 at 8:38 amhttp://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-naylor/19/a3a/4a0
    Seems the trolls here all have a vested interest in fleecing the taxpayer
  30. Seanos says:1st February 2011 at 10:50 am…and if I were you Frank, I’d learn what scientists mean when they use the word ‘theory’ before spouting off about in public, to avoid coming across as someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
  31. Bernie says:1st February 2011 at 8:47 pmThe only proper response that I can think of is that it’s time for you to call the guy a doo-doo head. Let’s this debate onto a higher plane.
  32. Frank Tavos says:1st February 2011 at 10:08 pm@Seanos I’d have to try a lot harder to come across as ignorant and idiotic , yet pompous and full of himself, as you do. Thanks for the advice, Mr. Science!
  33. DaveDude says:2nd February 2011 at 4:39 amFrank, try and understand, Einstein’s theory of relativity is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the world of the large. Quantum theory is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small. Darwin’s theory of evolution is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the creatures we see today. Just as AGW theory goes a long way in explaning greenhouse gases and climate. Scientists like explaining the world in theories, but it doesn’t mean it’s all wrong. So get your science right before debating.
  34. Nige Cook says:2nd February 2011 at 2:27 pmDaveDude, the “greenhouse” analogy is false! When did you last see a “greenhouse” which had sunlight-reflecting clouds in it, formed by the evaporation of an ocean that covered 70% of its surface?
  35. Frank Tavos says:2nd February 2011 at 7:50 pm@ DaveDude. Alright, already! I meant “AGW hypothesis”, not “theory”. Enough with the semantics. The point I was originally trying to make way up above is that it’s up to those claiming that the hypothesis is supported by sufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate its predictive value.

    In the case of AGW, the “evidence” has been demonstrated to have been either falsified or massaged or cherry-picked in such a way that no rational person would trust it. Not only that (and this relates to my Jan 28 admonition to Chris P to “Read your Karl Popper.”) but the AGW hypothesis is a moving target. Every time the evidentiary basis of AGW is knocked out from under it, its proponents simply change the name (e.g.: “Global Warming” becomes “Climate Change”) or the predicted effects of AGW (“the earth’s temperature will rise by X degrees” becomes “the earth’s temperature will maybe rise or fall by X degrees”). If it can’t be disproven or if it purports to explain everything that occurs, regardless of what happens, it is what is known as pseudo-science. AGW is no different than dialectic materialism (a.k.a. Marxism) or astrology, or even Christianity. It can’t be disproven because it does not adhere to the scientific paradigm.

    So, no, AGW does not go “a long way in explaning greenhouse gases and climate”. It may go part of the way to saying that earth’s climate is changing, but so what? That’s no surprise. The very nature of climate is that it never stays the same. It is in constant flux as a perfunctiory examination of climate history tells us. But the most important thing that theAGW hypothesis fails to to do is demonstrate a link between human-produced CO2 and climate change.

    So what it has become is a convenient tool for governments to justify to the gullible, the ignorant and the lazy their attempts to wield more power and take away human freedoms. I don’t know why any sane and rational person would chose to believe the AGW hypothesis unless they have somnething to gain from it; be it grant money or control over the levers of society and the economy or support for their socialist world view. Which one are you DaveDude?

  36. Nige Cook says:2nd February 2011 at 8:39 pm“The very nature of climate is that it never stays the same. It is in constant flux as a perfunctory examination of climate history tells us.” – Frank Tavos

    Spot on! We’ve been in a warming period for 18,000 years. The whole holocene, during which humanity thrived, has been a period of climatic change.

    Much of the Sahara desert was a tropical paradise a few thousand years ago, and it wasn’t destroyed by humanity. The last ice age is still receding. What the natural climate change deniers insist, by lying, is that the climate is a delicate equilibrium, critically controlled by CO2 levels. In fact, the relative influence of H2O, plain old water vapour, is a bigger greenhouse gas.

    However, as always, the eco-evangelists misunderstand this, claiming it has a positive feedback on CO2, e.g. see http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm where James Frank on 2 September 2010 falsely claimed:

    “Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.”

    This is what the IPCC computer models say, and is precisely why they’re wrong.

    I blogged about the error over a year ago, http://nige.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/how-natural-climatic-changes-are-lyingly-covered-up-by-doom-mongering-lying-propaganda-to-secure-research-grants-for-crackpots-with-a-political-agenda-an-analogy-to-string-theorists-spin-2-graviton-p/

    Summary: NASA scientist contractor Dr Ferenc Miskolczi of AS&M Inc on 1 January 2006 resigned with a protest letter about being censored out, stating:

    “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science can not coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climatic change related scientific results. … I presented to NASA a new view of greenhouse theory and pointed out serious errors in the classical approach of assessment of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas perturbations. Since then my results were not released for publication.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25310277/Dr-Miskolczi-Resignation-Letter

    His theory is described by his research associate Dr Miklos Zagoni, see the paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory

    NASA effectively banned its publication through the peer-reviewed literature, just as it had used groupthink fear to censor out the effects of low temperatures on making the rubber Challenger O-rings brittle, so they leaked during a cold morning launch, causing the 1986 space shuttle explosion. (This was the big cover-up that Feynman famously exposed with the cup of iced water and a rubber O-ring during a TV news conference, as part of the Rogers’ Commission report into the disaster, which NASA astronaut Niel Armstrong failed to spot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report .)

    Basically, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s life as a NASA climate research scientist was made hell because he discovered that the extra water vapour being evaporated is not having a positive-feedback (increasing the CO2 warming effect by absorbing more infrared from the sun), instead it is going into increased cloud cover, which reflects incoming sunlight back to space. So it has a negative-feedback effect, not a positive-feedback effect. NASA’s climate computer models all have not merely a quantitative error in the effect of H2O on climate, but an actual qualitative error. They have a plus sign where the sign is really negative.

    Dr Miskolczi’s evidence is that, as stated on page 4 of Dr Miklos Zagoni’s paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory , “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.”

    That shocked me, and made me really angry that nobody is reporting this in the media, and just coming up with straw-man “sunspot” stuff (no offense to Lord Monkton, but that’s astrology).

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.” – Dr. Miklos Zagoni.

    The only media report on this scandal is a terribly written story by Dianna Cotter of
    Portland Civil Rights Examiner, “Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate”, 12 January 2010, see http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate

  37. Seanos says:2nd February 2011 at 11:26 pmActually Frank you old charmer, I think I will fuck off.

    Being exhorted to read Popper by a man who doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is surely has to be the comedy high point and things can only go downhill from here, so I’ll leave you little Einsteins to it. Adios!

  38. Frank Tavos says:3rd February 2011 at 6:38 pm@Seanos – You’re right, things would go downhill from here for you – because I just obliterated your side’s weak arguments with my last post. You realized that you had absolutely no chance of refuting my argument, so you gave up. Good for you. I like a person who knows when he/she has been soundly beaten. Adios, loser.

Comments are closed.

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’

Let’s just remind ourselves, shall we, why the BBC is constitutionally incapable of reporting on global warming in a fair, balanced or indeed honest way. On 26 January 2006, the BBC’s not-notably-sceptical Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin organised a conference at BBC TV Centre called Climate Change – The Challenge To Broadcasting. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

Perhaps it should really have been called The Challenge To Impartiality. It was co-hosted by the director of television Jana Bennett, the director of news Helen Boaden and held under the auspices of the BBC and two environmental lobby groups – The International Broadcasting Trust and the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme. The keynote speaker was the fanatically warmist ex-Royal Society President, Robert May, who proceded to assure the audience of around 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests, most of them environmental activists, that – as Bob Carter puts it in his superb Climate: The Counter Consensus – “the science supporting global warming was so certain that it was the BBC’s public duty to cease providing airtime to alternative viewpoints.” The BBC has been hideously biased in its coverage of AGW ever since.

Tonight’s Panorama is a case in point. Here is a blog by the programme’s producer Mike Rudin describing the piece of glib Warmist propaganda he is foisting on the licence-fee paying public this evening.

See if you can spot the weaselry in this summing-up paragraph:

There is genuine uncertainty and disagreement about the exact scale and speed of human-induced global warming and crucially what we should do about it. But I was surprised to find how much agreement there is on the fundamental science.

Yep, what Rudin is trying to do is revive Al Gore’s discredited idea that there is a “Consensus” on global warming.

And here’s the cheaty way he goes about demonstrating it.

He sends his reporter Tom Heap out to solicit the views of various “experts” with a chart called a Wall of Uncertainty.

(Top Gear may have its “Cool Wall”, but we have built a “Wall of Certainty” – Rudin confides to readers of his blog, showing this isn’t just a serious programme. It’s FUN too).

The expert panel is pretty evenly balanced. For the Warmists Professor Bob Watson, Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute. For the sceptics, Bjorn Lomborg and Professor John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. What Lomborg and Christy don’t appreciate until its far too late – ’twas ever thus with the BBC – is that the entire exercise is a total stitch up. They are there to give the illusion that all sides are being consulted. But note how loaded are the questions which they are asked:

“How certain are you that mankind is warming the climate?”

“How certain are you that C02 and the other things are greenhouse gases?”

“How certain are you that we are emitting more CO2 which is one of the greenhouse gases?”

Naturally the answer to all these questions, even from the most ardent sceptic Christy, is a “very.” That’s because there’s really no other honest answer to any of them.

But what does this prove? Absolutely nothing other than that on the subject of climate change, you’d be better off sticking your hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes and hope not to be bitten than you would trusting the BBC.

This disgraceful programme – and you should be ashamed Jeremy Vine, for giving it your imprimatur by introducing such dross – quite deliberately misrepresents the sceptic position using a Straw Man argument, before drawing conclusions about the state of the AGW which are entirely dishonest.

Here is what Rudin thinks the programme means:

Contrary to some of the newspaper headlines and blogs that suggest all global warming science is a con, they agreed that mankind is causing the planet to warm up.

Note that use of the straw man again. NOBODY believes that “all global warming science is a con.” NO ONE. Because if they did, when you think about it, that would mean discounting the expertise of climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, which obviously no climate sceptic is ever likely to do being as they are trusted, revered gurus of the climate realist movement.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists
  2. Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming
  3. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

6 thoughts on “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’”

  1. James W says:29th June 2010 at 10:57 amThe BBC is a scandalous organisation crammed with partial leftists and PC-warriors all intent on spitting out the propaganda of their pet causes and denigrating rational arguments against such.

    Whilst simultaneously bleeding the public purse to a huge degree. No doubt indulging in mutual sniggering sessions over the fact that the public is paying for their determination to brainwash them.

    In the words of King Edward VIII, “Something must be done”.

  2. Nick Mabbs says:29th June 2010 at 2:58 pmJames W

    What do you mean – partial ? They’re fully paid up libtards !

    Or they thought they were ‘fully paid up’; it’s nice to see that their Pension Scheme is crumbling too, as mine has, thanks to Broon’s pick-pocketing and Duncan-Dohnut’s
    £6,000+ mugging.

  3. forthurst says:29th June 2010 at 3:59 pmRudkin? Rudkin? Oh yes, wasn’t he the producer of two BBC programmes that ‘validated’ the NIST hypothesis that World Trade Centre 7 (Salamon building) collapsed spontaneously due to ‘fires’ without any additional assistance from demolition charges, an event reported by BBC World correspondent Jane Stanley a full 23 minutes before the event and with the aforementioned building still standing in the background?

    I think you will need to concede victory to the new science as espoused by the BBC; either that or you will have to view many more of that ilk for punishment.

  4. martin mcleod says:30th June 2010 at 5:41 pmAs someone who rarely bothers with the mainstream press, I was greatly heartened to hear your views on this Panorama programme.
    Occasionally, I watch iPlayer to see how low the standards on the BBC have become.
    I notice that Countryfile has been shifted to a primetime spot with many presenters and a focus on BS issues. Didn’t it use to come on at Sunday lunchtime featuring a man with a dog?

    That Simon whatshisname of Springwatch fame almost looks embarrassed when he has to read his global warming agenda scripts.
    A recent alarmist piece he did on the imminent disappearance of the Snow Hare due to global warming would have pleased the great Al Gore muchly.

    cheers

  5. JLK says:2nd July 2010 at 6:37 pmFor those of you who are worried that the momentum from the AGW fraud will allow govts, (especially the US) to pass economically devastating legislation, or those who just like to wallow in “schadenfreude”, Al Gore is now being investigated for an attempted rape charge in my home town.

    The case was dropped in 2007 because the massage therapist, who unfortunately for Al was legit, did not show up for the hearings. It has now been reopened by the local police. Of course Fat Albert is protesting his innocence but the complainant has solid evidence she has saved including one of those nasty “stains” a la Monica on her clothes.
    She did not pursue the prosecution at the time …get this….because her liberal friends (we few conservatives call my city “The People’s Republic of Portland”) convinced her that if Al was taken down Global Warming would consume the world.

    Needless to say the MSM is doing their best to ignore this but it’s only a matter of time before they are forced to face the story. The local press is covering it big time because they were previously caught covering up stories about local Lib politicians.
    JLK

  6. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:31 pmWell, Al Gore has done his best to rape tax payers and ordinary citizens everywhere for the past 20 years so why not rape his masseuse if he thinks he can get away with it. Being a sexual predator goes along with his delusions of grandeur, manipulating the media, general public and politicians and compulsive lying. He should be locked up.

Comments are closed.

Three Reasons Why Our Economy Is Heading for the Rocks

1. The BP oil spill. It’s much, much, MUCH worse than we think.

I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for BP. No Big Oil company has been more assiduous in sucking up to ecotards, bigging up the “alternative [to] energy” industry, promoting belief in ManBearPig. But I do feel sorry for the pensioners and shareholders dependent on BP for £1 in every £6 of their dividends.

2. Dismal ManBearPig-worshipper Tim Yeo MP being made chairman of the new Energy and Climate Change committee.

Politics.co.uk bears the grim tidings: (Hat tip: Bishop Hill)

Energy and climate change committee – Tim Yeo (Con)

Yeo has easily made the transition from the environmental audit committee, which he chaired in the last parliament, after that committee’s chair passed to Labour hands. He beat Philip Hollobone despite declaring an impressive range of interests, including a non-executive directorship of Groupe Eurotunnel, a non-executive chairmanship of AFC Energy and a consultant role for Regenesis.

Oh dear. The majority of Tory MPs who DON’T believe in Man Made Global Warming had their one and only chance and they blew it. The job should have gone to Philip Hollobone who could have been relied on to inject a note of realism into Chris Huhne’s certifiable energy policy – which will hamper the UK economy with at least £18 billion per annum of totally unnecessary “climate change” expenditure.

3. CGT v the Laffer Curve

In the Spectator the great US economist Arthur Laffer explains in terms even a Brasenose PPE graduate can understand exactly why raising CGT has exactly the opposite effect of the one intended: ie it stifles economic growth AND reduces tax revenues. Obviously one wouldn’t expect equality-obsessed class agitators like Vince Cable to grasp this point which is why equality-obsessed class agitators like Vince Cable should never have been allowed anywhere near our economic decision-making process. For this almost the entire blame falls on David Cameron: for having such a hang up about his class background; for lacking the moral courage to make the case for lower taxation, preferring instead to earn cheap popularity by being seen to “soak the rich.”

Related posts:

  1. Cameron and Osborne are giving public schoolboys a bad name
  2. ‘Trougher’ Yeo: we mustn’t laugh…
  3. 10 Reasons Why It Won’t Be So Bad When The Tories Get In
  4. Shock US Senate report: left wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ using green groups to subvert democracy, control the economy

2 thoughts on “Three reasons why our economy is heading for the rocks”

  1. David says:17th June 2010 at 2:30 pm“In the Spectator the great US economist Arthur Laffer explains…” ::reads Spectator article::
    !
    Aha! Very true. Makes perfect sense!

    “…in terms even a Brasenose PPE graduate can understand…”

    Yeah. Unfortunatly, this is where I begin to disagree with you though. People such as these don’t even know how to read. Maybe a pretty video can help them?

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

    Wait, no. Nevermind. I tried to help, but all I’ve realized is that not even a video could persuade them, let alone attempts at education via reading. Throw in all the colors, logic, HISTORICAL FACTS, diagrams, or powerpoint , or you want, people with the class envy disease are nigh-incurable. So sad. So true.

    Dammit we tried huh?

  2. John of Kent says:19th June 2010 at 7:38 amTwo other reasons why our economy is heading for the rock (on them already actually):-

    1) Europe, we both pay too much to the EU for nothing in return and have allowed our economy to be tied to closely to the Eurozone which is now collapsing.

    2) We don’t make anything anymore. You cannot have a successful economy that relies on importing all our goods from China and pays for theis with the crashed finance industry and parasitic service industries. Economic success is reliant on the making of profit by turning raw material into finished goods and thereby creating value through manufacture. We don’t do this anymore in Britain, even much of the rest of Europe has more manufacturing than the UK. Our remaining industries (pharmaceuticals for example) are rapidly being offshored as we speak.

Comments are closed.

Why Man-Made Global Warming is a load of cobblers; Pt 1

Bob Carter’s counterblast.

Just been reading Climate: The Counter Consensus (Stacey International) the new book by Bob Carter – that’s New Zealand’s Professor Robert M Carter to you, mate: he’s one of the world’s leading palaeoclimatologists – and it’s a cracker. By the end, you’re left feeling rather as I did after the Heartland Conference, that the scientific case against AGW is so overwhelming that you wonder how anyone can still speak up for so discredited a theory without dying of embarrassment.

All the same, it’s good to be reminded now and again why the “consensus” thinking on AGW simply doesn’t stand up. There are so many excellent examples from Prof Carter’s book, I might be forced to spread them out over several blogs.

Take his chapter on the oceans. The other day some troll or other was brandishing a figure he’d got from NOAA, showing that the sea was warming. Well bully for you troll, but if you understand at all how climate works that fact does precisely zilch to support the case for AGW. Why?

The good Prof explains:

The ocean covers more than 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface and over much of its area it is 3-5km deep. Comprising water, which is one thousand times denser than air the ocean has far more mass than the atmosphere – notwithstanding that the atmosphere covers the entire planet and is 50 km high to the top of the stratosphere. The result of this is that the ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, specifically 3,300 times more. Put another way, all the heat energy contained in the atmosphere is matched by the heat content of only the upper 3.2 metres of the worldwide ocean.

Another consequence is that water requires much more energy to heat it up than does air. On a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is, of course, 3,300 to 1. One practical result of this is that it is almost impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the ocean, as is often asserted to by promoters of global warming alarm. For to heat one litre of water by 1 degree C will take 3,300 litres of air that was 2 degrees hotter, or one litre of air that was 3,300 degrees hotter, neither of which is a very common scenario in our every day weather system. Instead it is the ocean that controls the warmth of the lower atmosphere, in three main ways: namely, through direct contact, by infrared radiation from the ocean surface and by the removal of latent heat by evaporation.

Prof Carter goes on to explain that the time scales in which the oceans absorb, recirculate and re-emit heat are often much larger than is dreamt of in the Warmists’ philosophy.

….Major time lags are built into the climate system such that a warming or cooling event that occurs today (say the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1976/1977 which corresponded to a worldwide step increase in temperature of about 0.2 degrees C) may be reflecting a change in heat energy that was stored in the ocean hundreds of years ago…

Indeed, he says, some scientists suggest that the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the Twentieth Century may represent ocean outgassing caused as long ago as the Medieval Warm Period.

And if you think his disquisition on the oceans drives a coach and horses through the Warmists’ AGW doom religion, wait till you hear what he has to say in his chapter on Computer Modeling.

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. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

 

Climategate: Where Is Private Eye?

Suppose the British government  – in the teeth of the worst recession since the 1930s – were committed to spending £18 billion a year for the next 40 years on a problem that did not exist. Suppose the total estimated global cost of dealing with this non-existent-problem were $45 trillion.

Suppose that a scandal had erupted in which some of  the principal scientists who had been talking up this non-existent problem, essentially for political reasons, were found to be corrupt, dishonest and fraudulent. Suppose that among the institutions which stood to benefit from this massive scam were top financiers, banks and energy companies. Suppose that the people pushing this scam were an unholy, often hilarious, eminently mockable alliance of disappointed ex-communists, hair-shirt greens, failed presidential candidates, scheming politicians, bald-snarling-nightclub-bouncer lookalikes, loopy Old Stoics, European technocrats, one-world-governmenters, Notting Hill yummy mummies and tree hugging loons.

Suppose this were the biggest con trick in the history of the world – a Ponzi scheme to make the South Sea Bubble look about as serious as claiming for a cab that wasn’t strictly for work.

Pretty good subject matter, might you not think, for one or two fabulously thrilling exposes by Britain’s premier satirical magazine Private Eye?

But apparently not. Apart from a feeble polar bear joke on its cover – “Go with the floe” says one bear to another, perfectly encapsulating the magazine’s pathetically limp position – and a couple more similar cartoons within, Private Eye has chosen to pretend that the most important issue of our time isn’t happening.

Why not? Well perhaps this passage from the end notes of Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster offers a clue:

“In conversation one day with my Private Eye colleague Ian Hislop, I remarked casually how flimsy it seemed was much of the evidence behind the global warming scare, only to receive an almighty put down to the effect that George Monbiot of the Guardian knew a great deal more about the subject than I did and that I should think twice before daring to challenge such an expert authority.”

Booker, let it not be forgotten, was the first editor of this once-great satirical organ – whose purpose, he always told contributors in the early days, was “to challenge all orthodoxies.”

Over the decades, Private Eye has more than lived up to this precept with its frank, fearless (and legally costly) willingness always to speak truth to power.

But apparently not on this occasion.

Related posts:

  1. The sad death of Private Eye
  2. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  3. Prof Brian Cox: prettier than Brigstocke but just as wrong
  4. Climategate 2.0

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.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. ‘Dark Energy’ reminds us: consensus has no place in real science

 

Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo! | James Delingpole

September 27, 2009

I’ve just had an email from someone signing herself Jo Abbess Bsc wanting to know whether I did a science degree. She has written it up at her online-CV-cum-website.

Jo who? The name rang a vague bell so I Googled her.  Abbess, it turns out, was the blog bully who last year demanded the BBC censor a true story on its website about global cooling. She didn’t like the way it gave succour to evil Global Warming Deniers.

So she wrote to the BBC’s science editor Roger Harrabin a series of finger wagging emails, one of which went:

“It would be better if you did not quote sceptics. Their voice is everywhere on every channel.” [Really? She should try watching BBC sometime]. “They are deliberately instructing the emergence of the truth. I would ask: please reserve the main BBC Online channel for the emerging truth.”

When Harrabin replied, not altogether unreasonably, that there were no factual inaccuracies in his story, Abbess made a threat:

“I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”

Harrabin got the message. (Not as though he is exactly the most neutral of reporters on AGW anyway, as anyone familiar with his  “polar bears melt and Tuvalu sinks while the coal-fired power stations of cigar-smoking capitalists belch unprecedented quantities of CO2 into Mother Gaia’s lungs” style of eco-reporting will know).

He caved in and amended his story so that it accorded more correctly with Fraulein Abbess’s particular weltanschauung.

You can read the full story here at the Register.

And now the woman’s on to me, Lord help us. No, Jo, love – unlike you I am not blessed with a physics degree from Warwick University. But does my humble arts degree really disqualify me from commenting on the wilder excesses of the self-flagellating, misanthropic, tendentious, dishonest and hysterical “green” movement?

Does anyone really need a science degree to understand that a five fold increase in the polar bear population between the 1950s and now does not constitute a catastrophic decline?

Is it really that scientifically demanding to work out that if computer models show global temperatures rising inexorably with CO2, and we suddenly enter a ten- or twenty-year period of global cooling, then there’s something a bit untrustworthy about those computer models?

Fortunately, as an English literature graduate, there are at least some areas of the green debate on which I am unquestionably fit to comment. Take this piece of  doggerel I found on the Guardian comments pages the other day, on the kind of thinking we all need to embrace if we are ever to heal the world:

The new thinking has to be something like this :-
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
The only way we make it out of here alive is if we believe, and act as if
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies.

The author of this poem, I would say, makes William McGonagall look like Keats, has a lightness of touch that makes Polly Toynbee look like Noel Coward, and a depth of political insight which makes Tinky Winky Teletubby look like Thomas Jefferson. I’m sure the author of the piece who signed herself “Jo Abbess” cannot possibly be any relation of the distinguished Warwick University physics graduate who wrote asking about my academic credentials.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  2. Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their ‘science’ collapses
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report

3 Responses to “Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo!”

  1. Bud says:September 30, 2009 at 1:51 amWho the fuck is Jo Abbess?Seriously, who?

    I mean, ignoring your non-existent grasp on the scientific issues of climate change, how have you managed to manufacture an entire crowing blog post about someone who no-one even knew existed until she emailed you?

    Grow up, James. Anyone with a degree in anything ought to know there is a difference between warning someone about losing credibility and censoring them, as if ‘Jo Abbess’ even had the power to do the latter. You more than anyone should know this, as the author of numerous irrelevent climate-denial crap.

  2. Samoys says:October 3, 2009 at 6:04 pmlot about you
  3. dilandinga says:October 4, 2009 at 8:46 pmMXAnbY I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Bloody Marvellous Aussies Kill Carbon Emissions Bill

Hurrah, hurrah and thrice hurrah for Aussie common sense.

Australia’s Senate – the Government’s upper house – has just voted by 42 to 30 to defeat the cap and trade legislation bill proposed by their premier Kevin Rudd.

Why did those Senators reject Rudd’s scheme, despite their prolonged drought and their bush fires? Well some – the green ones – did so because they didn’t think its emissions cutting targets went far enough. But the majority did so – duh – because they didn’t want their coal-dependent heavy industry hamstrung by still more pointless taxation and regulation, their consumers fleeced and their economy ruined in the middle of a thwacking great global recession. And, in at least the case of Senator Steve Fielding, because they’d done their research and discovered that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a figment of Al Gore’s imagination.

Having consulted scientific experts including Ian Plimer [whom I interviewed in the Spectator a few weeks back and whose views are neatly summarised here] Sen Fielding was inspired to visit the US to assess at first hand what evidence the Obama administration was using to justify its radical Waxman Markey cap and trade measures. He was not impressed and issued a challenge, emailing graphs to one of the US president’s energy advisers showing that, despite rising CO2 levels the globe has not warmed in over a decade.

He concluded: “Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer… I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.”

Or, as another Aussie senator, more succinctly put it when criticising Rudd’s climate change bill: “It is a dog of a plan.”

Where Australia leads, we can but hope and pray, the rest of the world will follow – especially Obama’s would-be Socialist One World Government (formerly known as the USA). While it’s true that Nancy Pelosi managed to railroad the Waxman Markey cap’n’porkbarrel’n’trade bill through the US House of Representatives, it looks set to have a much tougher ride in the Senate. Especially given the growing strength of feeling among US voters that cap n trade is no more than a massive scam which will enrich one or two green vested interests – Al Gore’s, for example – while impoverishing ordinary Americans to no useful purpose whatsoever.

Here, is what the latest Gallup polls say:

“The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.”

“What’s more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.”

“Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll’s first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.”

One Response to “Bloody marvellous Aussies kill carbon emissions bill”

  1. Gods Church in Australia says:May 30, 2010 at 1:24 pmMany Christian people in Australia do not approve of the beliefs of Ian Plimer because he is a former Humanist of the year and a believer in the ungodly theory of Evolution. He is also sympathetic to Roman Catholic ways. After al, Teilhard de Chardin is the author of the Piltdown Man fraud.

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot Too Chicken to Debate ‘Global Warming’ with an Expert?

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

A couple of weeks ago, you may have seen, I wrote a piece in the Spectator which drove the  global warming alarmists almost insane with frothing indignation. It was an interview with the Aussie geology professor Ian Plimer whose bestselling book – Heaven and Earth – is being hailed as the great turning point in the debate on anthropogenic global warming.

Methodically, rigorously and above all scientifically, it carefully demonstrates to the lay reader truths that to large swathes of the scientific community are  already quite obvious: viz that “climate change” has been happening for 4,567 million years, regardless of man’s presence on earth; and that “climate” will go on changing regardless of what idiotic, ineffectively and mind-boggling expensive ploys man adopts to try to stop what is in fact a perfectly natural process.

Enough detail: read the piece; then read the book; then make up your own mind.

The climate change alarmists, though, do not even want you to do that. What they’d much rather you did was go onto the internet, find a page of nit-picking quibbles put up by a parti-pris computer modeller from the “man is doomed,  it’s all our fault and we must spend gazillions on windmills now” brigade, write Professor Plimer off as a complete crank.

It’s what they do to Christopher Booker; its what they do to Professor Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia; its what they do to Marc Morano at the marvellous Climate Depot website; it’s what they do to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who exposed the “Hockey-Stick curve”; it’s what they to do anyone who produces inconvenient truths which undermine their cause and threaten their claim that there is any kind of scientific “consensus” on climate change.

It’s a classic ploy of eco-fascists and libtards alike: if the facts are against them – as they usually are – they’ll always try to shut down the debate by taking the argument ad hominem instead.

The response of the Guardian’s resident eco-moonbat George Monbiot was a case in point. He sputtered that I knew about as much about the environment as he knew about F1 racing; and wrote a huffy piece effectively saying that Plimer too far beyond the scientific pale to be taken seriously.

Plimer’s response? To offer to fly from his native Australia at his own expense and publicly debate with Monbiot at the time of his choosing. The event would be conducted under the auspices of the Spectator and would, I’m sure, be informative, exciting and sublimely entertaining.

I say “would” because I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. Here is George Monbiot’s response to the challenge:

“Sir, Ian Plimer challenges me to debate his claims about climate change. I accept.

In fact I accepted a fortnight ago, when I began this debate by taking him to task. Along with other critics, I have laid out a list of specific errors of fact and misrepresentations, which he uses to support his argument.

The ball is now in his court. To participate in this debate, he should answer the points I listed, as well as the other issues raised by Tim Lambert, Ian Enting and David Karoly. Then we can reply.

But Plimer, as far as I can discover, has yet to produce any specific response to the very serious allegations made by his critics, preferring to heap insults on them instead.

These are all scientific matters, some of which are complex. To engage in this debate, we need to establish the facts and provide references. This is why it is better to debate these issues in writing; ideally, as Plimer’s critics have done, in electronic format, so that people can follow the links. Attempting to resolve these issues in person is likely either to become extremely boring or to degenerate into a slanging match. The Guardian’s website is open to him, and we look forward to his responses. Is he up to this, or will he keep ducking our challenge?

The floor is his.

George Monbiot”

Now does that read to you like the letter of a man who is happy to venture his reputation in the cut and thrust of open debate?

Or does it read like the squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser quite terrified of having the massive holes in his puny argument mercilessly exposed in public by a proper scientist who actually knows his subject inside out?

Plimer, meanwhile, has imposed no conditions on the debate. All he asks is that it be conducted in public and that Monbiot turns up.

The ball’s in your court Monbiot and let’s have no more of that legalistic wriggling. Are you up for this debate?

Or are you – as I strongly suspect – going to bottle it?

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  3. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

 

Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. CO2 Is Plant Food

Destructive protectionism

For those of us who still believe in logic, reason, empiricism, rationality, commonsense, economy reality and our inalienable right not to have trillions and trillions of our pounds, euros and dollars flushed down to the toilet to no purpose whatsoever, listening to the Prince of Wales’s pronouncements on “man made global warming” is becoming an increasingly trying experience.

ManBearPig: the world’s deadliest threat. Well, if you’re Prince Charles

In the Spectator today, I interview an Australian geology professor called Ian Plimer whose brilliant new book – Heaven And Earth – is rightly being hailed as the one that is going to nail once and for all the crazy myth that man’s contribution to “climate change” is remotely significant, let alone something we should worry about or waste money trying to stop.

As Professor Plimer observes with characteristic Aussie bluntness: “CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.”

Yet so many of the ruinously expensive policies being formulated on our behalf by everyone from Barack Obama to EU president (and former Maoist) Jose Manuel Barroso to Ed Miliband to (God help us) David Cameron’s Conservatives are based on the scientifically groundless urban myth that human generated CO2 (quite minuscule, anyway, compared with the quantities of greenhouse gases volcanoes belch or even cows fart) is the most dangerous substance on earth.

Prince Charles is fond of telling us that we only have 100 months left to save the earth. (Apparently down to 96 now, or so he claimed in his recent Dimbleby lecture). But I’d say the time we have left to save the world is quite significantly less than that. Not from the perfectly natural process of climate change, of course, but the far far greater threat of climate change alarmism.

Unless those of us with more than half a brain cell unite and act soon, the earth is going to fall prey to  the most destructive, expensive, suicidally pointless taxation and regulation and protectionism in global economic history. We simply cannot afford any longer to allow the likes of the Prince Of Wales, Al Gore, NASA activist James Hansen, Lord Stern and their amen corner in the mainstream media to go on pushing their ludicrous scare story unchallenged.

Right now, out there in the real world, are numerous genuine ecological challenges that urgently need addressing: the decline of fish (thanks European Union fisheries policy!); pollution; diminishing water tables; deforestation; overpopulation; and the great eco-disaster that are bio-fuels. The Quixotic quest to arrest “climate change” – something that has been happening for 4,567 million years regardless of man’s input – is a silly and expensive distraction.

What’s particularly galling about the most outspoken supporters of climate change taxation and regulation is that many of them either are rich enough not to be affected by it or – worse – stand to make vast fortunes as a result of it.

The Prince of Wales is a case in point. When you’re on a salary of £18 million, as he is, you’re probably not going to be bothered overmuch by tiny details such as your gas and electricity bills doubling because of green taxes on carbon emissions. You’re not even going to mind, that much, that if Barack Obama’s new $7.4 trillion cap and trade tax on carbon emissions is introduced the global economic recovery is going to be set by a generation. Indeed, it’s probably very much in the Prince’s interests that we should all be rendered so poor that we can’t even afford to run our cars any more. It will leave Britain’s roads free for Charlie to pootle about as freely as he wishes in his bio-ethanol-powered Aston Martin.

Poop! Poop!

Related posts:

  1. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  2. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  3. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’