Lovelock goes mad for shale gas | James Delingpole

June 18, 2012

Lovelock: growing wiser with old age

A glorious interview with James Lovelock in today’s Guardian. Essential reading for everyone, greens especially. In it, the inventor of Gaia theory and godfather of modern environmentalism declares that wind farms are hideous, renewables are a waste of space, nuclear power is good, sea level rises aren’t a worry, environmentalism has replaced Christianity as the global religion and that we should all be “going mad on” shale gas, which he considers our best energy hope for the immediate future.

My favourite line, though is this one:

“I’m neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats.”

Needless to say the eco-nuts who congregate beneath Komment Macht Frei are going mental. One commenter calls him an “evil bastard”. Several others say they always thought Gaia theory was total rubbish anyway and suggest that at 92 Lovelock has probably started to lose his marbles.

Really? All sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Have a read of this:

Lovelock does not miss a chance to criticise the green movement that has long paid heed to his views. “It’s just the way the humans are that if there’s a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”

Or this:

Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how “ugly and useless they are”), he is now coming out in favour of “fracking”, the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”

If anyone can find serious flaws in this argument, I’d love to hear them. (And no: “James Lovelock is, like, really old, and, like, Gaia Theory sucks. Heh heh heh,” isn’t good enough).

My only criticisms of Lovelock’s recantations are that a) they couldn’t have come a few years earlier (they would have been a lot braver – and more devastating – when the global warming craze was at its peak and that b) they seem to have been prompted at least partly by self-interest.

The move, he says, has been forced on him. Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife’s hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy.

Could he really not see where green energy policies (inspired partly by his doomsday predictions in books like The Revenge of Gaia) were leading until he was socked with his first whacking great £6,000 heating bill? If so, then it strikes me as both a woeful failure of imagination and a lack of clear thinking. High energy bills, after all, are no accident. They are result of a very deliberate strategy by environmental pressure groups to make energy bills more expensive in order to force everyone to reduce their energy usage. Of course, the people this hits hardest are the ones for whom reducing energy usage is not really a viable option: the old and inform, many of whom have been driven into “fuel poverty” by the greens’ well-meaning attempts to save the world from the illusory threat of ManBearPig.

Still, better late then never, eh?

Related posts:

  1. Are lefties incredibly stupid or just plain evil?
  2. 24 Types of Authoritarians
  3. Am I offending the wrong Americans?
  4. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’

One thought on “Lovelock goes mad for shale gas”

  1. Herkinderkin says:26th June 2012 at 6:01 amHeh heh. Reminds me of Germaine Greer. She too, recanted somewhat as she aged. And like Lovelock’s change of heart, hers got naff-all coverage from the mainstream media.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

George Monbiot: The New Christopher Hitchens?

The road to soundness. . . .

George Monbiot's next incarnation

George Monbiot’s next incarnation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

 

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

Joy Shall Be in Heaven over One Sinner That Repenteth

Stunned angels, yesterday, after reading Monbiot

Stunned angels, yesterday, after reading Monbiot

George Monbiot on Japan:

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution.

H/T Bufo

UPDATE. Im grateful to Pirran for his informed insights into the rationale behind Monbiots spectacular conversion:

Moonbat has discovered the New Truthiness. GreenieNuke reactors are powered by the enduring hope of a new tomorrow. They are run by folk singers and vegans.

Old, dirty, nuclear reactors were the problem. They employed fat cats and lawyers and processed week-old puppies as fuel PUPPIES FOR GODS SAKE!! Thats why the Green movement was SO justified in condemning them.

Related posts:

  1. Japan: whatever happened to the nuclear meltdown?
  2. Nuclear power – some perspective
  3. Haiti disaster caused by failure of Copenhagen summit – says actor Danny Glover
  4. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’

12 thoughts on “Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”

  1. JLK says:23rd March 2011 at 3:16 pmHi JamesWhen my wife came into my office asking me “who George Monbiot is” I told her about His Looniness and she proceeded to read me the “money quote” about “crappy Nukes” from the WSJ.

    I immediately went to your site and was not disappointed. Maybe there is a God with logic and brains out there! Now if we could get one of the well known greenies from here to quoth a similar mea culpa. I am not counting on Al Gore to see the light.
    JLK

  2. Bernie Kelly says:24th March 2011 at 12:01 pmThis is great news! Whether a firm believer in CAGW or a skeptic or disbeliever, we have a solution to the common problem of energy security. All of us in the spectrum can put our differences aside and get on with the task of replacing coal and gas and possibly oil with Nuclear generated electricity. The world needs cheap power, essential to raise the poor out of misery.
    I am particularly excited about prospects of Thorium and/or Gen. 4 nuclear power
  3. Martin Lack says:24th March 2011 at 6:42 pmHi James,I agree that it is good that George Monbiot has got off the fence w.r.t. Nuclear Energy. He thus joins the ranks of such luminaries as James Loelock and Stewart Brand (see this very challenging YouTube video of his 4 environmental heresies [circa July 2009]).

    However, you really need to “change the record” w.r.t. your characiture of global warming as a “new religion” (a la Freeman Dyson) or “climate alarmism” (a la Richard Lindzen)….

    You have suggested elsewhere that there is a large body of british sceptics who question the consensus represented by the IPCC (which you claim has been discredited). However, as usual, your tiresome and unsubstantiated accusations fail to take into account the following:

    40% of the US population think that human activity is changing our climate and/or that any such change is a serious problem;
    Whereas 70% of the UK population think it is.
    However, at least
    75% of scientists think it is.
    More specifically, at least 82% of earth scientists think it is.
    And finally, the equivalent figure is 97% of climate scientists.
    That is what I call a consensus.

    Furthermore, what is the sceptical position?
    The atmosphere may not be warming; but if it is, this is probably due to natural variation; but even if it isn’t, the amount of warming is insignificant; but if it is, the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages; but if they don’t, technology will solve problems as they arise; but if it can’t, we shouldn’t wreck the economy to fix the problem.
    (Adapted from p.257 of “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” (2nd Ed), Robert Henson (2008).
    That is what I call a joke!

    Wikipedia has nailed you guys for what you are when it defines “climate change denial as… organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming

    However, as David Aaronovitch observes in his new book Voodoo Histories Conspiracy theories normally improve on reality. Therefore, it is AGW denial – rather than acceptance – that looks like a conspiracy and yes, in the UK, the Institute of Economic Affairs is its biggest corporate proponent. However, with the IEA, the clue to their problem is in their name – they are all economists! It is just a shame they did not shut up and go away when Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out that climate AGW is the greatest market failure in history“(right there on p.1). And before anyone suggests it – that rules out “discounting” future costs as an easy get-out clause…

    Here endeth the lesson.

  4. Nige Cook says:24th March 2011 at 9:07 pm

    “The atmosphere may not be warming; but if it is, this is probably due to natural variation; but even if it isn’t, the amount of warming is insignificant; but if it is, the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages; but if they don’t, technology will solve problems as they arise; but if it can’t, we shouldn’t wreck the economy to fix the problem.
    (Adapted from p.257 of “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” (2nd Ed), Robert Henson (2008).

    – Quote above by Martin Lack

    Martin, this is a strawman attack on AGW critics. The climate is always changing, usually at rates faster than at present as proved by the fact that the current rate of rise of sea level is trivial compared to the average since the last ice age was at its peak!

    So your argument must begin by falsifying the record to make natural variations in temperature look unprecedented (the hockey stick curve). AGW theorists invent a falsely stable natural climate history, allowing them to then claim that CO2 injections correlate with their faked temperature rise. This is what James exposed in climategate.

    But it gets worse. The “greenhouse effect” is fake, as recent research on cloud cover shows. Unlike a greenhouse, where water vapour amplifies warming when CO2 is injected, in the real world without the glass ceiling of the greenhouse, water vapour that absorbs sunshine infrared and heats up is able to buoyantly rise until it meets cool air a few thousand feet up, forming cloud. As research shows, this is the end of the positive feedback theory whereby H2O amplifies CO2 effects on temperature by a factor of 2. Instead, the real bouyant H2O rises to form clouds which increases the earth’s albedo and cools the planet. So it produces negative feedback, which cancels out temperature changes from CO2 increases.

    Sooner or later you’re going to have to confront that this is real, solid physics, backed up by published research (e.g. see the evidence for strong negative feedback from cloud cover during 15 tropical intraseasonal oscillations in Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo, “Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations,” Geophysical Research Letters, 9 August 2007).

    Please get real. CO2 has only increased from 300 ppm to 388 ppm in the last hundred years. A tiny increase in cloud cover is enough to cancel out the temperature effect, and the mechanism for this increase in cloud cover is simple to grasp: http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate which includes the sorry tale of NASA censoring the anti-greenhouse mechanism of negative feedback from H2O:

    In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper “The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation”, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251).

    The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

    When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

    I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

    In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi’s results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

    Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
    Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

    Dr Miklos Zagoni

    The thing to note is that the dogma is so hardened that, as Al Gore/Comical Ali said, you can get away with lumping critics of the beloved AGW regime into the category of moonlanding deniers or holocaust deniers. In fact, you have to do this if you are in the AGW religion, because with all your data fake, you have no alternative than to throw mud and try to end the argument before it begins.

    Dr Zagoni’s evidence, is that the NOAA data showing a fall in the the global average absolute humidity diminished by 1 per cent from 1948-2009: “This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.”

    His argument here is that CO2 increased by 25% over that 61 year period (from 310 to 388 ppm), and so the 1% drop in H2O as water vapour over that period has cancelled it out (H2O in vapour – not cloud cover – form is 30 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, therefore a 1% drop in H2O is equivalent to a 30% drop in CO2).

    This is a nice clean evidence-based argument, but I don’t like the way Dr Zagoni (and others explaining that H2O is negative feedback cancelling CO2, not positive amplifying it) goes about his media relations. He starts off with a lot of technical modelling, all idealized stuff which is riddled with approximations and things for critics (the pro-AGW lobby) to get hung up on. He should put up the humidity fall graph and work on getting the explanation crystal clear, so even Al Gore could be put on the spot by it. Also, he needs to focus on explaining the simple physics for why the humidity has fallen: the warm humid air rises, making clouds.

    The question is, what will it take to make people wake up and smell the coffee on this one?

  5. James Delingpole says:25th March 2011 at 10:25 am@MartinLack My dear chap, you did promise us you were not going to come back. We all know here that you mean well, that you are passionately committed to your cause, but you don’t need to keep telling us. We know.
  6. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 10:50 amNige,It seems that when I address my comments to James; you reply. Does this mean that James will reply to this? I doubt it, because the only thing James has recently exposed is that he is no scientist and consequently avoids reading peer-reviewed literature; and prefers instead the continual recirculation of peer-to-peer denialist propaganda. Furthermore, although arguing with denialists (as with all conspiracy theorists) is a Herculean task; like cleaning out the Aegean stables. However, I have a brush in my hand so here goes…

    1. “A Rough Guide to Climate Change” is no “Strawman attack. This is because Robert Henson admits that no single denialist believes all of these things (p.257) but then spends the next 8 pages disproving each proposition in turn.

    2. MBH98 did not make the MWP or the LIA disappear, they (and all other reconstructions using different proxies) merely put those events in their proper perspective; as it is warmer now than it has ever been in human history (even NASA says so).

    3. True – water vapour has flattened the AGW that would otherwise have occurred (just as did atmospheric pollution between 1945 and 1975). But does that mean we should rely on it to solve our problem – absolutely not! Furthermore, water vapour is not the primary cause of the climate change we are now experiencing. In particular – in case you missed it (then or now) – your information on the efficacy of cloud cover is out of date, as this NOAA study from last year clearly demonstrates. Reading your posts is like reading one of my children’s semi-automated school reports and, clearly, you need to update your database of potential response material.

    4. Al Gore said, “Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries… have produced… a consensus that we… face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” (09/09/2005). Whereas, James Inhofe said, “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”(28/07/2003). Only one of these men can be right, but I know which one I would put my money on – the one backed by 97% of climate scientists, 82% of earth scientists and 75% of all scientists!

    5. As I have said to you before, water vapour is continuously varying in space and time; it always has done and always will. However, at any one time and in any one place it is typically between zero and 3%. Therefore, it is simply intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that there has been a 40% increase in CO2 levels since 1850, when they were already as high as they had been for 200k years. Furthermore, they are now higher than they have been for tens of millions of years. To continue to argue that this is not likely to cause the Earth’s climate system stress is reckless to say the least.

    I am fully awake and enjoying my coffee, how about you?

  7. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 11:03 amSorry to disappoint you James, but I have been unable to resolve my inability to reply to comments at http://my.telegraph.co.uk/earthyissues/.However, if you are saying that alternative views are not welcome here, then clearly, George Monbiot was right (see final paragraph here)! But I am sure you would not want to leave yourself open to that line of criticism, so I will not promise to leave you alone again. Incidentally, I cannot see that you ever responded to this (24/01/2011):

    I am looking forward to seeing tonight’s Horizon programme: I note your denial that you objected to the line of questioning put to you. If so, who is the source of claims that you did object? Furthermore, if Sir Paul Nurse is not intellectually capable of “raping” you, can you please enlighten me as to the scientific credentials that qualify you to make your cynical pronouncements on the subject of climate change?

    Even if the likes of Sir Paul Nurse, and/or David Mackay (see http://withouthotair.com [Part I, chapter 1 on “Motivations” especially]) cannot convince you that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are the primary causes of acceleration of the “greenhouse effect” since the Industrial Revolution, would you also argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is flawed? Would you indeed deny that the concept of entropy is a myth?

    Even if you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the 10 warmest years in the last 200 have all been in the last 3 decades; can you accept that the Earth’s resources and its capacity to accommodate humans are finite? Unfortunately, the Limits to Growth hypothesis of Meadows et al (1972) has been proven correct and, very soon now, we will have to confront some of those limits. The real myth is that perpetual growth is the solution to all our problems. It cannot be the solution to anything; it is our ultimate problem.

    Anyone who denies this is denying the reality of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the concept of entropy; and I for one would not dare to stick my neck out that far.

  8. yaosxx says:25th March 2011 at 1:18 pmJames – What the hell’s going on on DT Blogs – some are working but most are not!
  9. yaosxx says:25th March 2011 at 2:57 pmWell most blogs appear to be up and running – except for yours! Is there some sabotage going on…?
  10. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 2:58 pmMartin Lack,1. I wrote that you were making a strawman attack by that contrived quotation,

    2. I wrote that it’s now warmer than ever before, since climate is always varying one way or another and it’s been warming since the minimum in sea levels (120 metres lower than today) 18,000 years ago. I’ve in previous comments commented on the mini ice age, caused by the North Atlantic conveyor e.g. Golf Stream shutting down due to ice shelfs melting and flooding the North Atlantic with bouyant fresh (non salty) water.

    3. The NOAA data from 1948 to now shows the fall in H2O vapour. You write: “Furthermore, water vapour is not the primary cause of the climate change we are now experiencing. In particular – in case you missed it (then or now) – your information on the efficacy of cloud cover is out of date, as this NOAA study from last year clearly demonstrates.”

    You’ve completely misunderstood what Susan Solomon (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), co-chair of the 2007 IPCC report, said. She said that the increase in H2O in the stratosphere caused 30% of the global warming in the 1990s, and thad thet 10% drop in H2O in the stratosphere since 2000 has had a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

    The Guardian article you linked indirectly to (via a nonsense propaganda blog!), by David Adam on 29 Jan 2010, “Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals”, starts with a photo of a cloud, captioned underneath:

    “A 10% drop in water vapour, 10 miles up has had an effect on global warming over the last 10 years, scientists say.”

    What David Adam and the Guardian editors conveniently fail to highlight in the caption is that the “effect” over tyhe past 10 years was cooling, not warming. In other words, the water effect over the past 10 years DID EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU: IT STOPPED GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

    It’s a classic example of the highly biased Guardian misinforming highly biased people like you into making lying attacks on scientists. The article did go on to eventually state: “A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.” Apparently you didn’t read that?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

    The 10% drop in stratospheric H2O in 2000-2010 is included in the NOAA data I quoted. If you know anything about climate, you’d know there is no water in the stratosphere to speak of: it’s concentrated below the tropopause. So that’s a strawman argument by you, yet again.

    “Reading your posts is like reading one of my children’s semi-automated school reports and, clearly, you need to update your database of potential response material.”

    Martin, you should not start getting personally abusive until you know the facts. Your incompetence to see that even the Guardian article you refer to agrees with what I said (the NOAA data from 1948-2009 showing a fall in total H2O vapour) shows you’re the one with the problems. Maybe you need to stop and think for a change before jumping to conclusions?

    “As I have said to you before, water vapour is continuously varying in space and time; it always has done and always will.”

    We agree here that the total amount of H2O in the atmosphere is not varying: what I’ve been telling you is that the partition of that H2O between vapour and liquid droplet phases has varied. The NOAA data show a fall in vapour by 1% since 1948, with an increase in cloud cover (albedo increasing). As H2O vapour falls, the greenhouse effect due to H2O falls, and it’s 30 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so a 1% fall in H2O vapour is like a 30% fall in CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas. As condensed H2O (cloud droplets) increased, it reflected more sunlight away from the earth. So the change in partition cancels out CO2 effects, just as your beloved Guardian stated has occurred in the past decade!

  11. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 7:41 pmNige,If you had bothered to read my (“nonsense propaganda“) blog artcile, you would have noticed that I accept exactly the points you, nonetheless, felt it was necessary to repeat. However, the NOAA admit the cooling effect of water vapour reduced (but did not cancel out) the warming that occurred. Furthermore, they would NOT agree with you that we therefore need not be concerned about global warming.

    As ever, you are highly selective about which points you choose to agrue and those which you choose to ignore. I would give you, at most, 10 years until you will have to O/D on humble pie.

  12. Nige Cook says:26th March 2011 at 9:01 amMartin,“As ever, you are highly selective about which points you choose to agrue and those which you choose to ignore.”

    As I stated, Susan Solomon (US NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), co-chair of the 2007 IPCC report said that the increase in H2O in the stratosphere caused 30% of the global warming in the 1990s, and that the 10% drop in H2O in the stratosphere since 2000 has had a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

    The key data that debunks AGW is NOAA’s 1948-2009 curves showing a 1% drop in H2O vapour, equivalent to a 30 x 1% = 30% drop in CO2 greenhouse gas equivalent, which well cancels out the 25% rise in CO2 measured during this period.

    Since it suits you, you ignore this complete set of long-term data, you selectively focus on a subset of it – for the last 10 years – by a Solomon at NOAA who was co-chair of the biased 2007 IPCC report – and then you accuse me of being “selective”!

    I include all the evidence from 1948-2009. You only comment on the last 10 years. So you’re the one being highly selective. The data is in, and you’re disproved. First, there is no non-fiddled evidence for any unnatural global warming. All the data is fiddled. Tree ring growth is a function of cloud cover and rainfall, not merely air temp. Weather stations are affected by nearby city or industry growth, pumping out local heat (not a CO2 effect). Finally, weather satellites can’t see 62% of the surface because it’s under cloud.

    So they just measure the surface Planck spectrum and temperature for a biased sample of 38% of the earth’s area, namely that not under clouds. This biased sample then has to be corrected using flawed procedures. So in fact, you are the one who is being “highly selective”, not me!

Comments are closed.

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

What Green MP Caroline Lucas Should Know about Liberal Fascism…

Bourgeois eco-fascism on the rise

In today’s Guardian Britain’s first and (thank Gaia!) only Green MP Caroline Lucas tells us that climate change is “one of the greatest threats” to Britain since the Second World War. Her solution is for Britain to “mobilise as a nation in a way we haven’t seen since 1945”.

What this means (as is clear from the new report – entitled The New Home Front – which she launched today at the Imperial War Museum) is government rationing of food and energy, bans on unnecessary journeys, the abolition of property rights, extensive Ministry of Information-style propaganda campaigns and massive wealth re-distribution.

According to Lucas, this will be OK because of the magic it works on social cohesion, just like during the war when we all pulled together.

People put up with so much disruption and deprivation because they knew there was no alternative, and because they believed society would emerge stronger at the end of the war.

Perhaps it’s time Lucas read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, which anatomises this mindset just perfectly.

Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascist movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.

Fascism, Goldberg explains, is not a movement of the political right but of the political left. It is a “religion of the State”.

It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.

Now compare this with what Lucas says in the Guardian today:

Of course, much of what we cover in the report is really the responsibility of government. But it is as if the country’s politicians are scared of their own people. They know that we must act now on climate change, but are frightened to introduce the necessary measures in case it alienates the voters. I hope this report will increase pressure on politicians and reassure them that, once people in Britain understand what needs to be done and are convinced that everyone will be treated fairly, then they will respond with the same creativity and commitment as in the dark days of the war.

She makes it sound as if the public will be allowed to have some choice in the matter. But will they? Try decoding this weasel sentence from the report, produced by the hardcore environmentalist think tank the Tyndall Centre:

The most effective policies and approaches should be re-interpreted for today and built into our programmes with an enabling regulatory environment, targets, timetables and appropriate resources.

Doesn’t sound like a recipe for free markets and freedom of choice, does it?

In fact one of the few things scarier than Lucas’s smiling, Malvern-Girls’-College-educated brand of bourgeois eco-fascism is the sort of person to whom it appeals.

Here is one of them responding at Komment Macht Frei:

Personally i think a nice big nuclear war would rid us of our problems. Most of the human on this planet have no respect for it so i cant say i would miss those who would perish anyway. Let the cockroaches have a go….

And here’s one that proved too much like strong tofu even for the tastes of Komment Macht Frei’s notoriously eco-biased censors: (H/T Henry Brubaker)

As I sit here in Brisbane the bodies of children are, quite literaly, floating down the river outside my flat.
I’ll assume it is only pure ignorance on your part that prevents you from realising just how offensive your climate change denial has become to the millions of people who are, have been, and will become, victims of it.’

‘And perleeese. Don’t further compound your faux pas by trying to claim that “it’s all due to La Nina”. If you tried that here in Brisbane you would get your face smashed in.’

Related posts:

  1. Green MP Caroline Lucas tries to keep science out of climate science
  2. The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy

18 thoughts on “What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…”

  1. Groper says:23rd January 2011 at 5:21 amBit rich of you to describe everything not remotely extreme rightwing as fascism when liberatrian fascism would have gladly layed the red carpet out for the Schutzstaffel. Drink out of the piss pot of your grandmaster misinformer Goebbels. Heinrich’s rectum cleaner than the surface of a silicon wafer. In fact, you look so much like Himmler he would have graciously taken you on as his favourite grandson. Both of you spectacle chinless wonders could feed off each others’ hate agenda.
  2. Hannam says:23rd January 2011 at 12:14 pmGroper: You are totally insane. Please see a Doctor for your own good. Best wishes.
  3. Chris P says:23rd January 2011 at 4:43 pm“a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)” – definition.

    Delingpole – must be related to Ann Coulter. Is just as clueless and make stupid nasty remarks and gets paid for it.

    What skills do you have apart from writing drivel?

  4. Manuel says:24th January 2011 at 2:00 pmJust trying to translate the previous comments, in the interests of civilised discourse, I presume that Groper and Chris P disagree with your definition of fascism. It’s a little hard to tell. Groper’s argument seems to be that libertarianism would have been as useless as the Weimar constitution was at preventing the rise of the Nazis, before wandering off in some comparison with Nazis, although if anyone can add a verb to the silicon wafer comment it might help.

    Chris P – having read quite a few in-depth studies of the phenomenon (may I rec ommend Roger Griffin’s “Modernism and Fascism”), yours is perhaps the worst definition I’ve seen as it only seems to refer to the structure of government rather than attempt to tackle anything about beliefs; fascism is hardly unique in advocating “authoritarian hierarchical government” now, is it?. I’d suggest that any definition must at least have a reference to the total state control, such as Mussolini’s “nothing outside the State” comment, as well as the notion of rebirth and attaining a break with the past, what Griffin calls a “palingenetic myth” or “Aufbruch”.

    I’d suggest that Delingpole getting paid for “making stupid nasty remarks” is more impressive than you two doing it for nothing.

  5. Daniel says:24th January 2011 at 9:39 pmLol. Just seen you on Horizon. Thank God youre as nutty as TV as you are in print. You came across as a total geek without the ability to process simple arguments. ‘I resent the fact that you know more about this than I do..’ *Loves it* Thank God we wont be seeing you on TV *Dances*
  6. chris says:24th January 2011 at 10:02 pmSorry to change subject but just saw you on Horizon. You did not come over too well. Bad Luck
  7. Paul M says:24th January 2011 at 10:11 pmJust witnessed Delingpole (degree in Eng Lit, not much else) telling Sir Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner and a lot more) how science works, with a perfectly straight face. And some say he has lost his sense of humour.
  8. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:22 pmGroper

    I see you’ve taken up the socialists usual debating stance: throw emotional shit around because you’re all out of ammo on the actual facts.
    Just for your info fascism is the corrupt partnership of Govt and the big fat corporates. It’s actually what Nu Labour became under Nu Socialists like Blair when they worked out they were total shit at running anything and they needed private expertise.
    So you cannot be a “libitarian fascist” it’s an oxymoron which describes you pretty well too.
    No why don’t you f**k off and find an argument you arse wipe

  9. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:30 pmChris P

    When it comes to writing drivel James has a lot to learn from you. That’s because from the day you were born your Union shop steward father (closet Marxist) has taught you not to think but to take up the mantra (bile) of Karl Marx.

    You’ve replaced thinking and listening and learning about how the world works with accepting a century old jealous retarded German twats thinking of how it works. He talked drivel, your father taught you drivel and you talk drivel.

    Zombies R Us (it runs in the retarded socialist family tree)

  10. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:51 pmJames

    Caroline Lucas is a retard and fits in well at that toilet of the country, Westminster.

    I know Danny Boy is friends with this factually dysfunctional incognitively f**ked air headed leftie loon so I don’t want to say anything too harsh against the loony bitch you understand.

    But rarely have i watched a debate where at the start she cried about our melting world drowning in rising sea levels. And at the end said we needed to get the green message across in a less shrill and hysterical way, but more down to earth trying to get across the benefits of changing from private cars to public transport!

    I think she’d had way too many uppers before she got on stage and realising overdosed on downers near the end in the interim completely forgetting her words and that she was coming across as a schizo freak not quite of this planet.

    As i said, should fit in well at Westminster

  11. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 6:19 amThe problem is, I don’t think Velocity or Delingpole know exactly what libertarianism is about. Just their blind loyalty to it. But one thing for sure about libertarianism, is its loathsome attitute to anything left, centrist or mainstream; and its preaching of taking America back to its founding fathers. Just like the Nazi movement’s staunch anti-communist stance and the mission to take Germany back to its traditional roots.

    And funny, perhaps, not so, just so happens it was borne out of the knee jerk reaction to America’s first president of half black decent.

    Libertarianism is fascism… of the Nazi order…

  12. Mike says:25th January 2011 at 9:10 amGet intellectually raped last night, did you?
  13. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 9:28 amManuel, I’m not here to impress you with anything. But the fact that you seem to admit to being impressed by Delingpole’s stupid remarks says a lot about you…
  14. Will says:25th January 2011 at 10:03 amIn last nights Horizon programme Delingpole said he didn’t have time to read scientific papers on climate change. Why not? If he spent half the time learning enough basic science to understand the relevant papers and then reading them as he does slagging off the climate science community – on the basis of second-hand cherry picked and distorted information (and some downright lies) – he could actually end up knowing his bum from a bath towel on the subject. I am ashamed to have attended the same school as this shallow lightweight (though about 20 years earlier)- but then I did study science and not English literature!
  15. Chris P says:25th January 2011 at 4:12 pmVelocity

    My father wasn’t the source of my knowledge or opinion. Seeing how clueless Republicans and libertarians are about science and the environment was the basis for my opinion on those clowns.

    “Fascism” is being used here totally out of context. Liberals are not Mussolini. You know it but want to emulate Limbaugh, Palin, Beck and Coulter. Throwing outrageous snarky remarks around rather than contributing to solutions for the future of the planet.

    It’s all you’ve got.

  16. DoubleU says:25th January 2011 at 7:45 pmJames, check out this video link where a former member of the Obama administration admits environmentalism is about socialism.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-environmentalism-is-really-all-about-social-justice/

  17. D Segal says:25th January 2011 at 10:55 pmOn a couple of side notes:

    1: Your peformance on Horizon last night was less than extrordinary; understand the Peer-Review process and gain some sort of reasonable scientific understanding before you have the audacity to critisise any of it.

    2: Take into account all of the data when examining the issues concerning Global Warming and don’t just cherry-pick data to suite your own ends. A Rank Correlation Coefficient between the percentage of global CO2 levels and average yearly global temperatures will yeild some quite interesting results.

    3: Based on your “About Me” page, you write in meaningless generic buzz words, don’t you?

  18. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 10:33 pmHi D Segal,

    The peer-review process is just just what it says on the label: an old boy’s mutual back-slapping, mutually citing, “I’ll pass your papers if you pass mine” piece of obsolete politics masquerading as science.

    Did you know that Newton’s Principia overthrew the groupthink peer-reviewed orthodoxy of Aristotle, that Darwin’s Origin of Species overthrew orthodox creationism, and that when Einstein first experienced peer-review by the editor of Physical Review in 1936, he immediately replied to the editor that he objected and would never publish there again?

    Do you seriously believe that relativity could ever have been published in a peer-review culture stuck in Maxwell’s mechanical aether?

    Really?

    I doubt it.

    Kind regards,
    Nige Cook

Comments are closed.

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

‘Why will no one listen to us any more?’ wails AGW propagandist | James Delingpole

January 16, 2011

Climate-change-Media-cove-007

Bob Ward is sad. Very, very sad. “Why won’t anyone listen to us any more?” he wails at the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.

One or two helpful commenters have tried to explain the reason. But unfortunately, as Richard North has noted, at Komment Macht Frei freedom of speech is not encouraged. See how many of their comments have been deleted.

Poor Bob isn’t the only victim of “Climate Change” apathy. Ryan Maue at Watts Up With That has found numerous further heart-rending examples of green activists who just aren’t being listened to any more.

People, what is your problem? Didn’t you know that this is the third hottest year in the entire history of the universe? Don’t you care any more that it’s all totally our fault? Are you really so sick and selfish that you don’t agree any more that our landscape should be carpeted with wind farms and our economy bombed back into the Dark Ages so as to bring global CO2 levels down to the correct, UN-mandated level?

I look forward to your explanations. And they had better be good. After all, as Al would say, this is serial!

Related posts:

  1. Lovelock goes mad for shale gas
  2. Sarah Palin totally gets it
  3. North reports the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission
  4. Richard Curtis’s snuff movie: A joke? A canny marketing strategy? I don’t think so.

One thought on “’Why will no one listen to us any more?’ wails AGW propagandist”

  1. Groper says:19th January 2011 at 7:48 amBrilliant Jimbo, freedom of speech? Like you regularly have posters to your Telegraph blog censored? Pot calling kettle?

Comments are closed.

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