Why Conservatives Shouldn’t ‘Believe’ in Climate Change

Have you ever wondered why conservatives don’t talk more often about nationalisation of industry, wealth redistribution, affirmative action, the need for higher taxes and more government intervention, Islamophobia, the glories of multiculturalism, the “war on women”, and the urgent need to rein in economic growth in order to give the planet a more sustainable future?

Me neither.

Conservatives don’t talk about these things because they are idle leftist preoccupations which have no place in a political philosophy based on personal responsibility, liberty and empiricism.

Which is why I’m a little puzzled by the latest outburst by Meghan McCain – daughter of US senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain – on the Pivot cable TV talk show Take Part Live.

She said:

“I do watch Fox News at night on occasion — and a lot of the time you see people throwing around climate change: ‘Of course climate change isn’t real! This is just a liberal issue! I think this is a cultural issue.”

“If we make this more accessible to people and turn this into a cultural issue meaning, Republicans, you’re not going to be able to hunt and fish as much — which I love doing — if there is no fucking fish to get!”

So another of the many dire consequences of climate change is that there will be no more “fucking fish”. Who knew? Clearly, with her high-level connections Ms McCain must have access to some privileged information since, so far as I’m aware, no serious scientist to date has tried to parlay “fucking fish” into their litany of predicted climate doom. (It’s not like fish – fucking or otherwise – are exactly going to be bothered by rising sea levels, is it?)

Still, Ms McCain is right about one thing. Climate change is, indeed, a “liberal” issue. In polls across the Western world, conservatives have always emerged as much more sceptical about man-made global warming than people on the left.

According to the left’s version of events this is because conservatives are ignorant, out of touch, anti-science and selfishly reluctant to change their greedy, sybaritic lifestyles.

(Hence the cheap shot from McCain’s co-presenter Jacob Soboroff, who said: “Put this shit on a beta tape or on a DVD and send it to all the Republicans without Internet!”)

But actually it’s much simpler than that. Conservatives are sceptical about “climate change” because they sense instinctively that this is a political issue rather than an environmental one – a suspicion given strong credence by the ongoing lack of convincing evidence that recent global warming is in any way catastrophic, unprecedented or significantly man-made.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Why conservatives shouldn’t believe in man made climate change
  2. Giles Coren says: ‘Climate Change. It’s SNOW joke!!!’
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’


Why Climate Science Is Far Too Important to Be Left to Pretty Boy Celebrity Physicists like Professor Brian Cox

Professor Brian Cox is almost certainly the prettiest physicist ever to have appeared on television. A crowded field, I know. But even I would, I suspect, happily married man though I am (and happily married man though he is too), given the right circumstances: those wonderful pouty lips; that winning perma-smile as he delivers his pearls of astronomical wisdom on his charming documentaries; the rock star cool – complete with Charlatans-style, retro haircut – a legacy of his days as keyboard player with Nineties pop band D:Ream.

So yes, I perfectly well understand why the BBC has elevated him to the position of go-to scientist on all matters of import, with TV series like The Wonders of the Solar System, and why he is constantly being invited to deliver TED talks and high profile speeches like the 2010 Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture and the Douglas Adams Memorial Lecture.

The only bit that troubles me – and it is something of a problem, I think you’ll agree, in a leading “science communicator” – is his somewhat uncertain grasp of the scientific method….

To find out what the problem is read on at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Six reasons why ‘climate science’ should definitely be on the school curriculum
  2. Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo!
  3. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  4. AGW: It’s not about ‘the science’


Does no one care about the plight of drowning Samoa? Apparently not…

The Prime Minister of Samoa has launched a heartfelt plea in the Guardian newspaper on behalf of his allegedly drowning Pacific nation. (H/T Bufo 75)

Unless concerted international action is taken to deal with the threat of ‘climate change’, apparently, small islands like his will be “inundated by rising sea levels.”

Tragically, it looks as if this request by the splendidly named Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, is destined to fall on deaf ears.

Even a fair chunk of the Guardian’s impeccably green, left-liberal readership, it seems, is now sufficiently well-informed to appreciate that sea levels aren’t actually rising in any dramatic, significant or unprecedented way, and that the “drowning Pacific islands” meme is just a piece of a Third World blackmail designed to guilt-trip richer Western nations into stumping up more aid.

Here’s one comment:

I’m afraid that, just as was the case with the Maldives story, this is an utter fraud being attempted by a money grubbing politician.Check the facts about what is happening.


So, Mr. Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, just how much money do you want?


And even more to the point, only 7 percent of Samoan land area is below 5m above sea level.So the plea for action for small, vulnerable nations like ours, seems a bit of a stretch as far as Samoa is concerned, even though some other places may be going the way of Atlantis.

Still another commenter points unhelpfully to the fact that most Pacific Islands are in fact growing not sinking.

Read the rest at Breitbart London.

Related posts:

  1. Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously
  2. How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?
  3. There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity
  4. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one


Climate Pseuds Sail to Arctic, Make Wanky, Salon-Praised Movie, Disappear up Own Bottoms

“Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great Climate War?”

“Well, son. I voyaged up to the Arctic Circle in a nice big boat with a bunch of installation artists, mime practitioners, YouTube cat short specialists and climate scientists on an all-expenses trip to make a documentary called The Earth Is Weeping: Feel Her Pain. My contribution was a Concerto for Gamelan and Nose Flute entitled Swan Song Of The Melting Polar Bear.”

“Gosh, Daddy, it sounds like you made a really important contribution to raising awareness of Climate Change!”

“Oh, I did, son. I did. But the competition was stiff. Let me tell you, by the mid-2010s you could barely move in the Antarctic or the Arctic for self-proclaimed artists and explorers and “climate” “scientists” making utter dicks of themselves in the name of saving the planet from the deadly threat of ManBearPig. There was the Ship Of Fools expedition of 2013. And sundry expeditions conducted under the name Cape Farewell Project, in which luminaries such as Martha Wainwright, Laurie Anderson, Jarvis Cocker, Cormac McCarthy, Feist and “comedian” Marcus Brigstocke sailed north in order to create meaningful art projects on the theme of climate doom.”

“Wow, Dad. How could your Concerto for Gamelan and Nose Flute possibly compete with such rampant pretentiousness and pseudery?”

“Son, it gets worse. There was a film – a Danish film called Expedition To The End Of The World. It got reviewed very favourably in Salon. That was the moment when I knew for me that the Great Climate War was over. Frankly it made me feel like a rank amateur.”

“Gosh. It sounds terrible.”

“Let me quote from the Salon review to give you an idea.”

Set alternately to Mozart’s “Requiem” and blasts of Metallica, “Expedition” is like a stoned camping trip to an unimaginably distant location, where your companions are a group of brilliant intellectuals, artists and scientists. No underlying premise for the mission is ever spelled out, nor is the provenance of the antique vessel ever discussed. As for the mind-altering substance on this voyage, it’s not weed or LSD – although the movie does not show us everything that happens on shipboard at night – but the extraordinary setting, a pristine Arctic landscape of sea, land, ice and sky so isolated that it has never been mapped or explored. Climate change has opened the fjords of Greenland’s northeastern coast to marine traffic for the first time in recorded history, and the members of the Danish expedition were among the first human beings to enter them in thousands of years.

“But, Dad. That makes it sound like the Citizen Kane of crappy eco documentaries!”

“And I haven’t even got to the polar bear scene yet.”

“Tell me what Salon says about the polar bear scene.”

“Listen carefully son. You won’t believe your ears.”
Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Pen Hadow: Arctic Pillock – the comedy saga continues
  2. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  3. Lying climate scientists lie again – about death threats, this time
  4. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock


‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists | James Delingpole

April 24, 2013

Now that global warming is completely unravelling, I want to elaborate on a point I made a few blogposts back about the role of humanities graduates in this great debate.

On the face of it, their record isn’t good. Some of the most influential promulgators of climate nonsense have been arts graduates – among them Bryony Worthington (the FoE activist turned peer responsible for the Climate Change Act), the BBC’s Roger Harrabin and a fair few of the Guardian’s 2,800-strong Environment Department. I think future historians – looking back on this period of mass hysteria in which so many people were persuaded by and so much expensive, damaging policy was based on the largest confection of lies in junk science history – could put together a reasonably persuasive thesis that it was mainly the fault of scientist-manque arts graduates too easily impressed by men in white lab coats.

Against that, though, you’d have to set people like me and the Booker. Neither of us – as the Warmists like endlessly to remind us and taunt us – has a science degree; yet we’ve dedicated most of the latter part of our careers towards exposing the scam. And we’ve done so with confidence not because we’re scientists but, rather, precisely because we’re not scientists. I don’t want to upset the many scientists here present who make such fascinating and enlightening contributions to this blog, for which I am always (well unless they’re trolls from the UEA….) extremely grateful. But as I tried to explain the other day in my brief spat with Wattsy, this debate isn’t mainly about “the science” and it never was mainly about “the science.”

This is something most of my journalistic contemporaries – such the one whose irksome private correspondence I quoted in the first version of this blog before someone persuaded me this was dishonourable and that I should take it down – have failed to understand. Even now, I think, in the journalistic mainstream, the view remains that “climate change” is a scientific debate about man’s influence on global warming. And it so isn’t. What it really is is just another proxy conflict in the culture wars: between those who believe in limited government, low taxation, minimal regulation, personal responsibility, free markets and liberty on the one hand; and on the other those who believe in an ever-enlarging state (perhaps even to the point of One World Government), high tax, more regulation, and rule by an elite of technocrats and “experts” on the other. I argue this, as those of you who have read it will know, in Watermelons.

In his latest column the excellent Lawrence Solomon makes a similar point about scientists versus historians:

Many blame the public’s confusion over global warming on a widespread ignorance of science. A scientific grounding wouldn’t hurt but it also wouldn’t help much – few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialist scientists wield.

The much better explanation for the public’s confusion lies in a widespread ignorance of history, not least by scientists. Any child can understand that the Romans conquered the world when temperatures were warmer than today, that the Dutch invented the ice skates during the Little Ice Age five hundred years ago, and that melting glaciers off Newfoundland a century ago produced the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

He’s dead right. We all have our part to play in the debate, humanities and science graduates alike. Our gravest mistake in this particular one, I think, has been to put far too much faith in scientists as arbiters of ultimate truth. We have elevated them to the status of priest, almost – as you can hear, for example, in the broadcaster’s reverential tone on the BBC every time he or she invokes the word “scientists”.

One of m’learned commenters (remind me and I’ll H/T you) traces the problem back to CP Snow’s 1959 Two Cultures lecture. Ever since arts graduates – note, eg, its effects on Melvyn Bragg’s career – have thought meanly of themselves for not having studied a proper science degree.

For years, I must say, I felt much the same about my own mere English Literature degree.

But not any more. Climategate and its aftermath changed all that. It’s not a science degree you need to negotiate the complexities of this tottering edifice of propaganda, tortured data, lies, misinformation, political wrangling, rampant greed, corporatist manoeuvring and establishment cover-ups: it’s the mental clarity you develop translating the Battle of Maldon, the powers of endurance you develop from reading the Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, and the critical nous you acquire while trying to understand what the hell Spenser was on about when he wrote the Faerie Queene.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  2. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist
  3. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

10 thoughts on “’Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists”

  1. m brown says:7th June 2013 at 9:38 pmJudging from the number of comments here no one reads this stuff. You are too extreme even for the loonies.
  2. Angus Rose says:15th June 2013 at 9:01 pmWhat promulgators of climate nonsense? Every academy of science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. The causes of climate change are known. The foundations of the supporting science were established back in the 1800s! Read up on Jean Fourier Baptiste (1824), John Tyndall (1859) and Svente Arrhenius (1896)… the list goes on. The scientific support is very broad and the evidence too.

    What is uncertain is the degree and timing of long term temperature projections, currently 1.1 to 6.4 deg C by century end, with a high degree of probability that it will be 3 deg C of warming. The modelling of any highly complex system is going to include simplifications, assumptions and some uncertainty. Ethically, scientific uncertainty is not grounds on which one can disregard the risk of harm to people, nations and ecosystems. It’s ethically reprehensible to only consider one’s own benefit of GHG emissions, when those same emissions place others at risk.

    Governments, non-national governments, organisations, corporations and individuals all have responsibility to reduce the risk of harm of others. Harms are already been experienced by many, with the WHO currently attributing 150,00 annual deaths due to diarrhea, malaria, drought, famine from climate change.

    Mr Delingpole, your disinformation campaign puts many many people at risk. Your arguments of ethics, science and evidence is flawed. If you’re insistent on acting purely in self interest then I would suggest you go back to the drawing board, as the legacy you’re trying to build won’t be worth tuppence when the majority in the UK start believing in the causes of extreme weather rather than your propaganda.

    1. Circuit Ben says:19th June 2013 at 2:20 pmHe’s a Tory, self interest is religion.
  3. M Yass says:19th June 2013 at 5:19 amI see ol’ Jimbo here still peddling his climate denial claptrap. So where’s his big expose? 4 years on and he’s produced nothing. Still, the guy’s got to earn a living.
  4. Circuit Ben says:19th June 2013 at 2:19 pmFor someone who gets his “Information” from oil companies, you’ve got an awfully smug way of denying scientific evidence. How much are they paying you? I thought journalism was supposed to expose corruption.
  5. Cicero says:1st July 2013 at 10:01 pmAmazing Angus that you actually believe the nonsense you have written.
  6. Gordon R says:6th July 2013 at 3:31 amDelingpole, a useful idiot for the fossil fuel lobby.
  7. millymolly says:19th August 2013 at 11:56 pmWhatever, I just can’t believe that ‘modelling’ although superb for many scientific applications, is the real, hard science that shows and predicts (with a high rate of certainty, let alone proof) what is happening climate-wise, or likely to happen.

    There are other factors which environmental or atmospheric scientists just ignore, perhaps because they can’t be modelled or not easily incorporated into the modelling?

    There’s that huge molten nuclear factory throwing x-rays or solar flares or magnetic storms towards us. Not to mention our not yet fully understood solar wind, and the heliosphere.

    There’s our molten inner core which I used to think couldn’t possibly matter until I read that heat from it does affect or at least comes to the surface more often in areas of high geo-thermal activity (I know ….should have thought it through).

    Then there is our axial progression which takes about 26,000 years – not to forget the hole in the ozone layer (or has it gone away) as well as what is presently known re gases etc being emitted from live volcanoes.

    After all the above has been incorporated into the modelling, then I think atmospheric scientists’ work should start.

    1. terry99 says:6th October 2013 at 5:32 pmEverything that could possibly warm or cool the atmosphere has been included in the models including the sun ,volcanoes , heat from the earths core, aerosols , soot, changes in earths orbit, water vapour, movements of the oceans and atmosphere,El Nino, agriculture, cattle,forestry, natural and manmade co2 etc . The suns output has been studied in great detail. The computer models output for past temperatures (“backward prediction”) matches accurately the actual measured temp record. This improves confidence in its ability to predict future temps.. The models do not PROVE agw but is one line of evidence among many that human produced co2 is causing warming .
  8. Terry 99 says:6th October 2013 at 4:35 pmWhen Mr Delingpole was asked by Paul Nurse if he would trust his own ” medical research” rather the scientific consenus of the medical team operating on him in a heart operation scenario he stumbled and fumbled ,could not answer and changed the subject. His understanding of the scientific method of enquiry is childish. Science and technology advances by the accumulation of knowledge from repeated experiments and theoretical debate leading to scientific CONSENSUS . The mobile phone was not invented by a brilliant journalist waking up one morning with a clever idea but on the accumulated knowledge of centuries of experiment (Newton,Faraday,Maxwell etc). Has mr Delingpole ever heard of these people ? What an Igoramus!!

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Official: Great Barrier Reef Doing Just Fine

May 12, 2012

The Great Barrier Reef, surviving

I have just been snorkelling over the Great Barrier Reef. (Not all of it: it’s 1,600 miles long). And I can now officially confirm that it’s doing just fine. The fish and corals are in excellent shape. Not one of the bits I investigated showed any signs of a) overheating due to global warming, b) dissolving due to ocean acifidication or c) collapsing in despair at man’s selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle.

Who’da thunk, eh?

But this didn’t, of course, stop our snorkel guide slipping in global warming, as a matter of course – a bit like when in the old days Christians used to say grace before dinner – into his introductory talk.

Nor did it stop the craft on which we travelled, spewing, to the reef bearing signs from the Queensland park authorities claiming that ocean acidification is real.

Why do they expose us to this alarmist drivel? Because, like the polar bear (but unlike, say, the snail darter), the Great Barrier Reef is big and impressive and captures the public imagination. If somehow it can be co-opted by the eco-loons into their ongoing campaign to destroy the world economy and ensure that as many parts of the globe as possible become virtual no-go areas for humans, policed by brown-shirted enviro-zealots, then co-opt it they will.

Take it from me: the Great Barrier Reef is going to survive a hell of a lot longer than Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming Theory.

Over to you, trolls …

Related posts:

  1. Official: Icelandic volcano with unpronounceable name was caused by Man Made Global Warming
  2. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis

2 thoughts on “Official: Great Barrier Reef doing just fine”

  1. Hotrodtoprod says:23rd May 2012 at 11:44 pmAsshole!
    1. EWorrall says:24th May 2012 at 12:33 amI agree – the people who are lying to us, telling us the GBR is in trouble, are A**holes.

‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion | James Delingpole

April 25, 2012

Lovelock: wrong

“Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth”, saith the Bible.

So let joy be unconfined that one of the archest of the world’s arch Greenies – James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis and therefore, more or less, founder of the world’s most powerful modern religion – has come clean and admitted that he got it wrong in his doomsday predictions about “Climate Change.”

Well, come almost clean.

I can’t say there has been quite as much wailing and lamentation and as breast-beating as I would have liked. Here’s what he has said in in his retraction in an interview with MSNBC.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Presumably, Professor Lovelock will now be donating all his royalties from his earlier alarmist bestsellers to help fund those proper, principled, decent scientists around the world – Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Tim Ball et al – whose careers have been blighted and whose lives have been made misery for having said precisely what Lovelock is now admitting, only much, much earlier. And then, perhaps, using his cachet among his greenie co-religionists to make amends for his sins by calling for the abolition of the IPCC.


But this case of backsliding is, in some ways, more significant still (H/T Benny Peiser/GWPF)

David Cameron is set to end his long silence on green issues, with a major speech in front of the world’s key energy and climate figures, the Guardian has learned. “It will be a major policy intervention by the prime minister,” said climate change  minister Greg Barker, who described the speech as a major keynote on the green economy. “All the big players in the energy sector will be there: China, US, Germany, France, Brazil, Abu Dhabi and so on.”–Damian Carrington The Guardian, 4 April

David Cameron is no longer making a pro-environmental oration on Thursday during a gathering of 23 energy ministers from around the world. –Jim Pickard, Financial Times, 23 April

Related posts:

  1. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  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

One thought on “’Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion”

  1. Aussiesue26 says:29th April 2012 at 3:40 amI saw you James on The Bold Report today (29/4/2012), and I said about time someone like you came forward and exposed all these money grabbing liers about global warming. I never believed it in the first time I heard about it, afterall living in Australia we always have droughts, floods, heat, cold and anything else mother nature throws our way, been happening since the world began.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic | James Delingpole

February 9, 2012

Vahrenholt: for you, Monbiot, the war is over…

„Seit 12 Jahren ist die Erd-Erwärmung gestoppt!“

When the Germans start running headlines like that in their biggest tabloid newspaper, you know that for the eco loons Der Krieg ist Verloren. It means “Global Warming stopped twelve years ago,” and it’s part of a serialisation being run by Bild (circulation: 4 million) of Germany’s newest surprise bestseller – a climate sceptical book called Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun). (H/T Jay)

What’s even more surprising is this: one of the authors, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, is a former environment minister and well-known green activist. P Gosselin at No Tricks Zone has the story:

What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Benny Peiser, himself a former member of the German green movement, Vahrenholt’s U-turn represents a huge blow to the climate alarmist camp. (For further details read this GWPF account and also this one)

“Imagine if George Monbiot were suddenly to declare himself a climate sceptic. That’s how massive this story is!”

  1. Margaret Thatcher: Climate Sceptic
  2. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  3. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  4. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat


Global Warming: Red-Faced Climatologist Issues Grovelling Apology

Even though I was wrong I’m still right…


I’ve just been listening to BBC Radio 4’s More Or Less. It was the episode announcing that the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s scientific adviser Dr David Whitehouse had won a £100 bet made on the programme four years ago with climatologist Dr James Annan. Annan predicted temperatures would rise in that period; Whitehouse predicted they wouldn’t. Annan lost.

But you’d never guess it from his high-handed tone when he was asked why he’d lost. “Just bad luck,” Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained “robustly positive.” He then agreed to another four-year bet. If it went against him a second time would he change his mind, Annan was asked. At first he appeared to agree that it would but then he started backtracking, insisting that it wouldn’t change in the slightest his view that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

This “Even though I was wrong I’m still right” syndrome afflicts a lot of people in the climate alarmist community. But then, you can hardly blame them for their wilful self-delusion and glib complacency for they seem to operate in a bubble in which there are no punishments for failure.

The classic example is Paul Ehrlich who lost a famous bet on “scarce resources” with the late economist Julian Simon (aka the “Doomslayer” because he was so good at confounding environmentalists’ hysterical scaremongering using actual scientific data as opposed to computer projections).

The interesting part, as I recall in Watermelons, is what happened next:

While Ehrlich continued to be feted as an environmental seer (in 1990, the year he lost the bet, he won a MacArthur Foundation “genius award”), Simon was invariably dismissed during his lifetime as a right-wing crank.

As a profile in Wired put it: “There seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.”

Digging that puzzling magic glow, Dr Annan?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  4. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

One thought on “Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology”

  1. Nige Cook says:16th January 2012 at 4:54 pm “Just bad luck,” Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained “robustly positive.”

    James, please see Dr Lakatos’s talk “Science and Pseudoscience”, published in the Open University’s published in Philosophy in the Open and in The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (Transcript here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx ):

    “If we look at the vast seventeenth-century literature on witchcraft, it is full of reports of careful observations and sworn evidence – even of experiments. Glanvill, the house philosopher of the early Royal Society, regarded witchcraft as the paradigm of experimental reasoning. …

    “… Knowledge can only be about Nature, but this new type of knowledge had to be judged by the standards they took over straight from theology: it had to be proven beyond doubt. Science had to achieve the very certainty which had escaped theology. A scientist, worthy of the name, was not allowed to guess: he had to prove each sentence he uttered from facts. This was the criterion of scientific honesty. Theories unproven from facts were regarded as sinful pseudoscience, heresy in the scientific community.”

    Fact: if you pump CO2 into a greenhouse, it gets warmer. Case closed. However, greenhouses don’t contain oceans and clouds inside them, where the clouds form as a response to the initial warming of the ocean, and then shadow the surface from further warming (negative feedback). This is where people like Nurse/Phil Jones go wrong. It’s also the flaw in the earth centred universe system of Ptolemy, where the planets, sun, moon and stars orbit the earth daily on closed crystalline spheres. Ptolemy was able to predict the positions of the planets etc using an ad hoc mathematical model called epicycles, where fiddles were introduced to allow for the errors in the original foundations of the theory. This way, Ptolemy could ridicule Aristarchus who suggested an alternative idea, but didn’t have the thousands of followers working out predictions that Ptolemy had. AGW is more of this.

    Where’s the glass ceiling needed for the greenhouse effect? You must have one, or global warming will cause water vapour which gets warmed by the sun (positive feedback) and thus expands and rises, forming increased cloud cover until the additional warming from the CO2 has been cancelled out. This is anathema to Nurse/Phil Jones and the Guardian writers like Monbiot, who just scoff and ask where the peer-reviewed papers are that prove that hot air rises? What matters to them is not fact, but political correctness. And it matters to you too, since you’re got to be understandable and compelling to a substantial proportion of your readers. It’s not so easy to overcome witchcraft which has billions of funding and is disguised as left-wing ethical morality. :-)

Comments are closed.

My incredible Big-Oil-funded life | James Delingpole

My perfect life: funded by Big Oil

As you all know by now, my Evil Climate Denialism (TM) is funded by Big Oil. That’s why I don’t have to waste any of my time scrabbling around doing new blog posts any more. I just lounge around quaffing MDMA-laced Cristal from 17th century Venetian glass while my harem of Estonian nubiles giggle coquettishly as they speculate excitedly on which three of them are going to play the “jeegy-jig” game with Mister James today. Then I have some foie gras. Special extra-cruel foie gras as supplied to me by the Koch Brothers ultra-lux rare breed torture farm. Because that’s the kind of guy I am.

Anyway, I wanted to share with you some interesting correspondence generated by a sceptic who is much, much nicer than me called Russell Cook. I write about him in Watermelons:

Let me cite, by way of illustration, the work of a man from Phoenix, Arizona, named Russell Cook, who describes himself as “a complete nobody”. One day Cook set himself the task of tracing the “funded by Big Oil” story to its source—and he discovered some interesting facts. One was that Ross Gelbspan, “Pulitzer prize-winning reporter” (as he was described by Al Gore and several others) has never won a Pulitzer Prize. Another was that the blanket smear about the alleged corruption of science under the direction of the fossil fuel industry can be traced to just one line of one memo, produced as part of a public relations campaign by the coal industry in the early 1990s with the aim of showing—not unreasonably, you might think—that the debate on AGW was anything but settled.
On this wafer-thin foundation, the environmental movement has managed to construct almost its entire propaganda edifice.

What does this tale prove? On its own, very little. Cook—a graphic artist, not a scientist or a reporter—is just another ordinary citizen who has harnessed the powers of the internet to find information which, a decade or two ago, might well have remained buried. The “funded by Big Oil” meme would have spread through endless repetition. And no one would have been in a position to question it.
But now they can. Anyone can. Out there right now are hundreds if not thousands of Russell Cooks tapping away on their keyboards, following hunches, satisfying their idle curiosity, not taking “no” for an answer, and generally living up to the motto of the (now sadly discredited: see next chap-ter) Royal Society “Nullius in Verba.” Take no one’s word for it.

Anyway, here’s Russell in action again – this time engaging, very politely with a Warmist professor at Oxford called Myles Allen. And getting somewhere:

Prof Allen,

No doubt you are receiving both praise and harsh criticism about your Guardian article yesterday. I have a more basic question to ask regarding the disservice being done science when politicians such as Gore tell the public that criticism or questions asked about the conclusions of man-caused global warming by skeptic scientists should be ignored.

You do agree that this is a larger if not egregious disservice than Gore’s attempts to equate extreme weather to AGW, do you not?

Al Gore has famously said that skeptic scientists are in the pay of fossil fuel companies. He pointed that out most notably in his movie near the end, comparing their efforts and an alleged leaked coal industry memo to older efforts by tobacco companies hiring so-called experts to sow doubt about the harm of cigarette smoking. Gore has quoted both the tobacco memo’s words, “Doubt is our product” and the coal industry PR campaign memo – spelled out full screen in his movie, “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”.

Did you know you can find the Brown & Williamson tobacco memo in its full context on the internet within mere seconds of starting a search for it?  Did you know the “reposition global warming” memo cannot be found in its complete context in a single magazine or newspaper article, or book, or web site where accusers quote it for proof that skeptic scientists are corrupt and untrustworthy?

Are you aware this bit of so-called ‘proof’ is the singular source for that accusation, that not a shred of evidence has otherwise been found to prove skeptic scientists have received payments from fossil fuel companies accompanied by instructions to fabricate false climate assessments? Does it not trouble you that no less than IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele relied on a person who repeats this unsupportable accusation when he claimed in a 2010 Guardian  article “Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics”  and that he called for people to ignore a prominent US skeptic scientist last month based on this same accusation?

These aren’t superficial talking points I toss out, these are from my own 21+ months of research into the accusation, I wrote about van Ypersele’s recent accusation relative to his ties to Greenpeace here  “Climate Science and Corruption”   and I’ve detailed Gore’s contradictions in his own accusation narrative here  “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?”  As an ordinary citizen, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. I have no expertise to say which side is right on AGW, thus I expect scientists to work out their contradictory observations and accurately report on what the situation actually is. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen’s reply:

Dear Mr. Cook,

I personally don’t feel it is particularly relevant where people’s funding comes from. The accusation that sceptic scientists receive money from fossil fuel interests is just as irrelevant as the (probably more frequent, and even more laughable) accusation that mainstream climate scientists like myself only find the results we do because we are in the pay of governments who want an excuse to raise green taxes.


Now I think if I’d been Cook, I would have been a lot snarkier in my response to Prof Allen’s ludicrous straw man claim. Fortunately Cook is made of politer stuff:

Prof Allen,

Indeed, what you say is true. It is entirely possible that an otherwise reprehensible scientist who is a tax cheat, animal abuser, spouse beater, and receiver of money from the Russian mafia could still conceivably write a paper that upholds a critical aspect of AGW.  We are in thorough agreement on that, I believe.

The critical problem here is that a large portion of the population has been led to believe by politicians, policymakers, and enviro-activists that (alleged) fossil fuel funding of skeptic scientists renders them completely untrustworthy. As a case in point, I asked the spokesperson of the largest electric utility corporation in New Mexico for their opinion of Fred Singer’s NIPCC 2009 report in relation of their decision to suspend their membership to the US Chamber of Commerce over the Chamber’s skeptical viewpoints on global warming. The spokesperson replied that her company agreed with a national US news program repeating the words of three scientists from Climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton who said the NIPCC was “fabricated nonsense.”

You see the problem there? An electricity provider to several million people relied on a single media source for a literally unsupportable accusation.

To the best of my knowledge, the funding sources of AGW scientists is not the primary point of concern of skeptics, but rather that AGW is not a settled matter in the face of skeptic science assessments. Careful examination widespread AGW narratives indicates accusations about the funding of skeptics is the overriding reason used for telling the public to ignore skeptics. Besides IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele’s recent repeat of this unsupportable accusation, Michael Mann said of Sherwood & Craig Idso in a 2003 ClimateGate email to a reporter:

“An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.”

Again, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen again, clearly a mite uncomfortable about the correspondence. (Hence his remarks about the cc list: I know what he means – if I were a Warmist I wouldn’t want my letters going straight to Morano either. It would be like sending your children swimming with great white sharks). Still, fair play to Prof Allen for replying.

Dear Mr. Cook,

And a large portion of the population has been led to believe that climate scientists as a community massage their results for political or self-interested ends. Unfortunately, two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not deny that there is legitimate social science to be done analysing the scientific process, but much of the “evidence” in this area, on both sides, seems to me to be largely anecdotal — it is not a field I work on, so I don’t think I would have much to add to what has been said already.

We should probably not drag lots of busy people into an e-mail debate — apologies to the cc-list.



Cook writes back:

Prof Allen,

I do thank you for the time and consideration you’ve taken to respond. You of course had the option to remain silent, as many on the AGW side have done with my direct questions in the past, so I do appreciate your responses.

With all due respect to your first sentence, I am tempted to ask what evidence you base the assertion that ‘a large portion of the population’ has even heard about, much less ‘believes’, such accusations leveled at AGW scientists. I’ve read extensively in opinion commentary that the rest of the world accepts AGW with the US lagging behind, having perhaps only half of the population as non-believers. Now, your statement appears to have one of two potential explanations:  ‘a large portion of the population’ has actually heard the accusation that AGW scientists are politically or monetarily motivated and have dismissed it out-of-hand, or else the population you speak of is instead a significant minority.

You see how the situation might prompt social science questions here. If indeed a sizable portion of the population does not believe AGW scientists alter data for self-gain, what then prompted you to make such a statement? My underlying question – after having asked so many politicians, policymakers, and environmental journalists about the justification to proceed with GHG regulations in the face of apparently legitimate criticism – is why I receive literally nothing but evasive answers, combined with outright efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists.

Long story short, I’ve done this since 2005, with a greater frequency after 2008. To have a lead author of a GHG regulation bill in Washington state tell me he considered and rejected skeptic scientist assessments, and fail to tell me which specific ones he rejected and for what reason, is simply amazing. To have a prominent board member of a society of environmental journalists tell me the corruption of skeptic scientists has been documented by many journalists starting with Ross Gelbspan, and then fail to tell me specifically who the others were, is inexcusable. To have a reporter of an ocean acidification devastation article be unable to tell me what the overall oceans’ pH level is, or another reporter refusing outright to tell me who actually quantified the ‘scientific consensus’, is inexplicable.

You are of course under no obligation to write another article on the Gore politicization problem that threatens to vastly undermine public opinion of AGW. I included Dr Curry and Mr Lynas in this as I’ve written to them before on the same topic, particularly in regard to Dr Curry’s appearance on the US PBS NewsHour program, which has had IPCC scientist guests on for a combined total of 14 appearances, and not a single skeptic scientist to view his assessments. Curry and Lynas have expressed concern about the politicization of the issue, and your 9/7 Guardian article certainly implies that the AGW issue may be needlessly eroded by political twisting of weather observations.

I’d think if Al Gore takes on the appearance of having libeled/slandered skeptic scientists, you’d view it as even more critical for him to either cease and desist on that tactic, or bring out irrefutable evidence of skeptics’ guilt.

Professor Allen, increasingly terse:

I repeat, two wrongs don’t make a right. The whole issue of who is motivated by what is irrelevant. I don’t care if the author of a paper I am reviewing is an “IPCC scientist” (whatever that is) or a “skeptic scientist” (which we all are) or has horns and a tail: I care if they have done their stats right. Myles

And Cook:

We are in agreement on that fundamental point of the irrelevancy of funding, and I trust that you do care that all scientists get their info right. This, however, is not a common ground shared by legions of loyal followers of Al Gore, who repeat in viral form that skeptic scientists should be shunned.

What I am driving at is that you opened the door by noting how Al Gore overplays an arguably smaller aspect of the issue. In presenting you with links to my own detailed articles pointing out a larger disservice Gore is doing to science with his apparently unsupportable corruption accusation, I leave it to you, as a scientist trying to pursue proper overall analysis of the global warming phenomenon, to decide whether you feel it is necessary to point out this larger problem.

Al Gore, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, and most recently IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele, say skeptic scientists operate in a tobacco industry-like conspiracy with fossil fuel companies. If you yourself cannot readily find proof that such a conspiracy is actually taking place – money given in exchange for false fabricated climate assessments, how do you react this problem?

Ignore it, or describe how it is not good to make conclusive statements without supporting evidence? This seems to have been exactly what you did with Gore’s extreme weather overreach, and is entirely the reason why I’ve written to you.

Dr Curry used a quote from someone else in her email response to you about “misinformation is being actively promoted by the fossil fuel lobbyists and their growing multitude of dupes and minions.” What assurance do we have that enviro-activists, along with their ‘dupes and minions’ are not the ones skewing the AGW issue, considering their portrayal of skeptic scientists as crooks while oddly refusing to show their central bit of evidence – those 1991 coal industry memos made famous by Gore and Gelbspan – in their complete context?

It’s the terrier-like tenaciousness of amateurs like Russell Cook which is ultimately going to win the Climate Debate. That’s because, much as men like Myles Allen might be loath to admit, this debate has long since ceased to be about science. It is about politics, spin and arguments from authority. The Warmist establishment has the bluster, the money and the big institutions, that’s for sure. But ultimately, these are going to be no match for the little guy with a lap top and a ruthlessly polite regard for the naked truth.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables
  2. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  3. Money Well Spent
  4. Climategate: the whitewash continues

20 thoughts on “My incredible Big-Oil-funded life”

  1. OctoFisty says:11th October 2011 at 7:35 pmI want my diamond encrusted codpiece meself. Complements my six boxing gloves nicely, methinks.
  2. mackintosh says:11th October 2011 at 7:50 pmwill have to read this excellent post a few times to absorb it all.Thanks James
    1. commonsensemajority says:11th October 2011 at 8:14 pm+1, great post JD.
  3. cremaster says:11th October 2011 at 8:59 pmYou can always tell quality, even if you are not entirely au fait with the details. As mackintosh says, this article repays more than one reading, and it’s clear this Russell Cook is one sharp-minded fellow. It’s no wonder that the professor was so intimidated.
  4. BenfromMO says:11th October 2011 at 9:02 pmVery well said. Great read and worth the time. Although I would find it hard to believe that Dr. Allen is not “a team player” so to speak, his frankness is appreciated. Indeed, this became a political arguement after the IPCC became political starting at IPCC v. 2. (1996)Ever since then, scientists have been removing themselves from that process and going in other directions since the science was taken over by people who had political agendas so to speak and as such rather…and as such most of the other scientists just went their own directions into things that mattered to them. The science is anything but settled today….I should note here that most scientists involved in CAGW are probably unwitingly only doing what their “patrons” want them to do, in this case studying the “effects of warming”. This means of course that most scientists who put out work do not make a claim on CAGW in general, but just make studies that say this: “If we warm by X, this is the effect on this aspect of the planet.”Nominally, we all realize that if we do not warm by X, then this research means nothing as it is predicated on that assertion and as such if we only warm by what we did in the 20th century, or if we do not warm at all, or if we cool, this research is worthless and a giant waste of time.

    But the real problem with science in general (which is where corresponding with the team scientists so to speak is so important..) is that without this team being dis-lodged and an end to this pointless political back-talk going in both directions, none of us should do anything but question every aspect of the science and read it carefully and inbetween the lines.

    The politicalization will only get worse as more sceptics get involved and realize what is at stake. If it was only a couple billion a year on research, well that is not the end of the world if it focuses on how we can adapt. Sure, that research can be used in the future if we do ever warm up.

    But the fact that our society is going to be forced to be changed to such a large extent due to this research, we should all be very very concerned.

    And this is why this correspondance is important. The talking to scientists involved in “detecting the human-footprint” will make them realize over time that this argument over CAGW will be over in several years as the warming fails to materialize. Even convincing people of small things works over time to show people that there can be science after the end of CAGW. Science survived the piltdoown man fraud, and I hope it can survive this.

    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 6:01 amIMO they already know the game is up. But the longer they can string it out, the fatter their pension pots will become, and the more speaking fees will be collected. And some paymaster players have sunk so much time and money into trying to convert enormous wealth into dictatorial green political power, they just don’t want to let go.
  5. OF says:11th October 2011 at 10:34 pmBig Oil – in the shape of British Petroleum and Shell at least – does fund one side of the climate debate (see foot of this page):http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
  6. Russell Cook says:12th October 2011 at 1:47 amMyself, I simply thank James for listening to a guy who is nobody in particular. In case anybody needs more reading material on my narrow focus, I have my online blogs and articles at this ‘borrowed page’ link: http://climategatecountryclub.com/profiles/blogs/the-96topresent-smear-of
    1. Russell Cook says:10th July 2012 at 4:47 pmTalking to myself now…. but I must, because the link I refer to in my comment above for the Climate Gate Country Club web site has gone non functional, so I had to borrow another site’s page to place my articles and blogs about the ’96-to-present-smear: please see http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1939-post-11632.html#pid11632
  7. NC says:12th October 2011 at 10:03 amBig oil won’t fund or do objective climate research or publicity, any more than the nuclear industry will research and publicise the dose rate effects in radiation. They have the big budgets that could resolve the problems, but there are “conflict of interest” problems. People in charge of big industry are intrinsically greasy pole climbing political expedients who can’t organise unbiased research, and don’t want to get involved in it for fear of being accused of a conflict of interest. This is illogical, because it’s in their interests to commission research into the fact that we don’t live in a “greenhouse” with a glass ceiling that prevents evaporated water turning into cloud cover with negative feedback on temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. (All IPCC models assume that water evaporation has a purely positive feedback from wideband absorption of infrared by water molecules, not reflecting droplets!)
    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 11:51 amThe biggest joke is the same Greens who accuse opponents of being in the pay of big oil themselves discussed taking money for research from oil companies.Climategate Email 0962818260.txt… Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
      agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
      partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
      conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
      after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
      asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
      etc. By email? In person? …

      1. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 2:59 amThe very first carbon trade of all was conducted by BP under the direct tutelage and guidance of Lord Browne, and he helped to craft the present framework of the IPCC and the system of derivatives trading known as emissions reduction marketing which in turn was based on the work done to craft same in the making of the Clean Air Act of 1970, part of Nixon’s legacy beside nifty cameo appearances while President on the “Laugh-In” Show.Odd how the following site has had only 80-odd hits as these satellites are the only real quantifiers and empirical behaviour trackers of climate related phenomena in existence truly covering GLOBAL phenomena at all levels of that Zombie cocktail we call our atmosphere.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/a-train/a-train.htmlAmazing that those doing the real work are completely ignored. If you read the mission statements, this is the ONLY way the issue can be resolved one way or the other. Hansen, BTW, has no part in the conduct of this set of missions. There is a scientific conflict-of-interest clause in his contract that keeps him light-years away from these workers which works in the same way that prevents bankers from proposing certain types of tax legislation directly.
  8. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 2:48 pmMagnificent piece. Wish your editor would allow you to include this much drilldown on the DT site.In any event, the green movement and global warming will not even be on the radar screen in a year’s time, folks. They still debate outing themselves to see if they can aspire to popular hero status; the Rob Wall Street At Camera Point bowel movement was just testing the waters.
  9. powerplant says:12th October 2011 at 3:06 pmThis is how Al Gore and Paunch Awry and other greentards would have edited the earthquake in DC if given the job to do so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qupH0qiWQgE&feature=relatedNo pressure LOL!
  10. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 3:03 amThe satellite OCO-2 is the one tracking the carbon in the atmosphere for the VERY FIRST TIME IN HISTORY EVAH. And it ain’t even been launched yet. :>phttp://atrain.nasa.gov/intro.php
  11. Gordonrear says:14th October 2011 at 11:45 amNot to worry Mr D, nobody believes you are funded by big oil. You’re just a useful idiot for them.
    1. Octofisty says:14th October 2011 at 2:47 pmGordon’s arse, you are simply a complete idiot of no use to anyone.
  12. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:12 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
    1. Petunia Pig says:21st October 2011 at 12:50 amI’ll bet you say that to all the girls, tee hee.
    2. Russell Cook says:2nd November 2011 at 3:18 amMr Fourie – we have a blog here a bit over 2600 words in length, and the best you can come up with is “don’t read anything this man says”?L’il bit of advice: If I was you, I would not quit my day job for a new career in proselytizing.