Ship of Fools IV: Another Green Arctic Expedition Scuppered by Ice

ice
Riccardo Bresciani/Pexels

A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.

According to Arctic Mission’s website:

A meeting of the four skippers was held led by Erik de Jong, with Pen Hadow present, and it was agreed further northward progress would increase considerably the risks to the expedition, with very limited scientific reward. The decision to head south, back to an area of less concentrated sea ice in the vicinity of 79 degrees 30 minutes North, was made at 18.30 (Alaskan time).

Concentrated sea ice? In the Arctic Circle? Whoever would have imagined?

As usual, on these occasions, the expedition leaders are covering their embarrassment by billing their failure as a great success.

Arctic Mission has undertaken an extensive oceanographic, wildlife and ecosystem research programme during the voyage, led by Tim Gordon of the University of Exeter (UK). This has included work on acoustic ecology, copepod distributions and physiology, microplastic pollution surveying, inorganic carbon chemistry, seabird range expansion and microbial DNA sequencing. Scientific findings will be released following comprehensive data analysis and formal publication in peer-reviewed journals in 2018/19.

It is believed Arctic Mission has sailed further north from the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean than any vessel in history without icebreaker support.

Well maybe. But that wasn’t the original point of the expedition when it was announced in the Sunday Times earlier this summer:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Prince of Wales’s Ladybird book on Climate Change Is Not a Spoof, Unfortunately

When I first read the headline on Twitter I thought this sounded like a perfectly splendid and hilarious idea – albeit a slightly cruel joke at the hapless Prince’s expense.

ladybirdLadybird has been doing a lot of ironic, spoof texts for adults, recently, with comical titles like The Ladybird Book of the Hangover; Five Go On A Strategy Away Day; The Midlife Crisis; the Ladybird book of the Zombie Apocalypse; and The Hipster.

A book on Climate Change by a pampered, deluded prince who has a valet to squeeze his toothpaste onto his toothbrush, drives a bio-fuel-powered Aston Martin and who predicted more than a 100 months ago that we had just 100 months left to save the world from ManBearPig sounded to me like a perfect fit for the series.

Perhaps I ought first to explain for the benefit of non-British readers what a Ladybird book is and why it occupies such an important place in our national psyche. Essentially it’s our literary equivalent of Sesame Street: Ladybird books taught many of us to read.

I myself learned to read using the Peter and Jane Ladybird series. Peter and Jane were the products of a wholesome pre-feminism-style nuclear family: Mum did the housework and shopping; Dad went out to work and even possibly smoked a pipe and had his supper waiting for him when he got home. They had a dog called Pat. See the dog. The dog likes the bone. Pat likes the bone. Pat is the dog. Something like that.

After Peter and Jane you would graduate to the more generalist Ladybird easy-reading  books, with titles like The Soldier (part of the People at Work series), The Elves and the Shoemaker (Well-loved Tales series), The Story of Railways (a Ladybird ‘Achievements’ book), Warwick the Kingmaker (from the Adventure from History series) and so on.

Anyone in Britain aged from about 35 upwards remembers these classics very fondly and was very sad when the series more or less petered out in the Nineties and Noughties.

But then came the Ironic Revival.

It started with We Go To The Gallery – a series of illustrations by painter Miriam Elia in which Peter and Jane try to make sense of modern art. This ended in disaster for Elia who was brutally squished by the publisher’s copyright lawyers.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Syrian ‘Drought’ That Created Islamic State Is an Urban Myth

CUlwAGdWIAEi0Ho

It’s an easy mistake to have made.  Often when people are short of food and water their natural instinct is to strap on a suicide vest, pick up a Kalashnikov and drive to Paris in order to kill a few hundred people as an important gesture designed to raise public awareness of the urgent need to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions before someone gets hurt.

But in this case, Friedman, the Prince of Wales, Charlotte Church – and also Graham Linehan, the Irish scriptwriter of the brilliant comedy series Father Ted – are wrong in their assumption.

We know this because of a stubborn fact called meteorological evidence.

As Roger Andrews demonstrates here in great detail the “drought” that supposedly ravaged Syria between 2006 and 2011 and drove thousands of ordinary Syrians into the arms of ISIS and Al Qaeda never actually happened.

Take Aleppo – where, according to the “drought” theory, conditions got so bad that thousands were driven off the land:

Last January, it was reported that crop failures ….. just in the farming villages around the city of Aleppo, had led 200,000 rural villagers to leave for the cities.

Maybe. But here’s the problem with that theory: there was no drought in Aleppo.

Average annual rainfall during the 2006-2011 period was only 9% lower than average annual rainfall over the preceding 55 years. The driest year during the period (2011) was only the seventh driest on record and 2006-2011 was only the 13th driest six-year period on record. Clearly the crop failures in the farming villages around Aleppo – which undoubtedly occurred – weren’t caused by a drought of Biblical proportions. In fact there doesn’t seem to have been a drought at Aleppo at all.

Yes, in some parts of Syria it’s true there were much greater falls in average annual rainfall. But not in any of the main crop-growing areas.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

No, Prince Charles, Climate Change Is NOT Responsible for Syria or ISIS

Clearly, though, my approach wasn’t subtle enough because a month later I had to write another piece called No, Charlotte Church. The Syrian Civil War Was Not Caused By Climate Change.

But there’s always one, isn’t there?

Now, it would seem, I’m going to have to wheel out yet another piece on the subject for the benefit of the dur-brain at the back. The dur-brain’s name is Windsor – Charles Windsor, aka The Prince of Wales – and here’s what he had to say in an interview with Sky News at the weekend.

Asked whether there was a link between climate change, Syria and terrorism, the Prince said:

“Absolutely.”

He added:

“Some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move.”

“And in fact there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land but increasingly they came into the cities.”

Coming less than a week after the massacre in Paris, the Prince’s remarks might seem not just warped, thick, irresponsible and hysterical but also crassly insensitive.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Prince of Wales calls for Climate Magna Carta to Cave the Planet from Global Warming

The Prince of Wales has demanded a “Magna Carta for the Earth” in order to save the planet from global warming – thus calling into severe question the abilities of those hapless dons who were charged with teaching him history when he scraped into Cambridge back in the early Seventies.

Had those history professors done their job, Prince Charles would surely be aware that Magna Carta was – at least insofar as it matters to us most today – a charter which protected the rights of the many against the tyranny of unaccountable power. But the kind of sweeping, pan-global, UN-enforced climate treaty the Prince is proposing represents the precise opposite.

Prince Charles, who made his speech to an invited audience at his International Sustainability Unit’s meeting on Forests, Climate Change and Development in London yesterday, is the latest of a number of international celebrities, ranging from rapper Pharrell Williams and President Obama to the Pope, who have spoken of the urgent need for a new global climate agreement.

Nor will he be the last. The purpose of all these high-level declarations of intent is to pave the way for the UN’s next round of climate talks in Paris this December which, campaigners hope, will result in the most significant treaty of concerted international action since the Marshall Plan.

This is what Mary Robinson – former president of Ireland, now the UN’s special envoy on climate change – meant when she told the Guardian that “this is the most important year since 1945.”

What she failed to add is that 1945 (more specifically, Berlin after the Soviets had arrived) is exactly what the global economy will start to resemble if the UN green technocrats get their way. Despite mounting evidence that there is no connection between rising CO2 levels and catastrophic global warming, the UN’s climate “experts” remain resolutely wedded to the idea that “carbon” (aka the natural by-product of almost every industrial process) must be regulated out of existence.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’
  4. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.

 

Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret | James Delingpole

October 20, 2012

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

From: HRH Prince of Wales

To: David Cameron

Dear Prime Minister,

As you will surely be aware having no doubt followed with close interest my trip round Britain on my bio-fuel-powered royal train, my landmark speech to the European Parliament on the theme “Why we must end this capitalism thingy now and retire to our agreeable Scottish estates and go fishing with our ghillies” and my speech in Rio warning that we have just 100 months left to save the world, the planet is in grave danger. As your future monarch, here is what I command you must do:

Build more wind farms. Lots of them. Especially offshore ones. That’s because the sea belongs to Mummy and money accruing to the Crown Estate is good money because one day it will fund my tireless crusading on behalf of Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Friends of the Earth and also pay for the upkeep of my Aston Martin which, don’t you know, is powered entirely by biofuels.

Stop everyone indulging in the frightful practice of breeding. You are doing an excellent job with the employed classes, having created an economy where it is all but impossible for anyone to earn enough to pay for their own upkeep let alone afford more children. But with the underclass there is much work to be done. Is there not some way you might persuade MI5 to slip bromide – or better still, some form of sterilising agent – into the batter on the chicken at… (Note to Perkins: please look up the name of the frightful place where the underclass consume their hideous prole food and insert). (Note to HRH from Perkins: Nando’s, sire.)

Encourage everyone to wear tweed. Tweed is splendid. Besides being robust, thorn-proof, and ideal for stalking in, it also keeps one warm in the chilliest of climes and therefore saves enormously on the cost of heating one’s various homes.

Rid me of the turbulent Delingpole. He delighteth me not.

Yours, etc,

 

Charles

I have no idea whether these are the exact words of the secret correspondence which the Attorney General has decided we’re not allowed to see. But I expect it’s pretty close. What are the Prince of Wales’s main political obsessions? Greenery is one. Easing Britain’s progression into the Caliphate is the other. It’s quite likely, I imagine, that both subjects would feature in his private letters to ministers. Which would surely explain why Dominic Grieve is so keen to keep them secret. After all, Charles’s future role as a constitutional monarch will expressly forbid him from meddling in the nation’s political affairs. It would hardly encourage much public confidence in our future king if he were revealed as a barking meddler who wants to drive up our fuel bills, ruin our countryside and undermine the established church, would it?

But perhaps the Prince of Wales’s suggestions were entirely sweet, sensible and unobjectionable. If that’s the case, surely it will do no harm releasing his correspondence.

And if they weren’t, well, all the more reason that we should know. After all, if Prince Charles is using his position to lobby (H/T Ian Whittaker) for policies which will affect us all then it ceases to be a private matter and becomes very much a public one.

Related posts:

  1. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  2. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  3. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.
  4. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report

Wales Is in Danger: Why Isn’t the Prince of Wales Saving It?

Bird-crunching, bat-chomping menaces

Anyone think this would be improved by 600ft wind turbines?

Anyone think this would be improved by 600ft wind turbines?

I hope this photograph give you a good idea of why every summer for the last 12 years I have taken my family on holiday to mid-Wales, for me one of the most beautiful and special places on the planet. Its all the better for being so little known. You can go for a walk on those magnificent uplands at the peak of the tourist season and glimpse barely another soul. Note too, how completely unspoilt it is. But for how much longer?

This is why I have just signed the petition No To The Industrialisation of Mid-Wales and why Im wishing the very best to the protestors wholl be gathering at a rally outside the Welsh assembly this Tuesday to voice their outrage at the destruction of their countryside in which their elected representatives in Cardiff disgracefully connived. It was back in 2005 that Cardiff’s joke quasi-parliamentary assembly of clownish second-raters otherwise known as AMs voted for huge swathes of the Principality to be covered in wind farms. But its only now that people have started to catch up with the environmental havoc this is going to wreak. (H/T Mike Blood who runs the Conservation of Upland Powys Facebook page, which deserves our support).

The wind farms  are bad enough on their own. But to make matters far worse, as Christopher Booker reports, in order for these bird-crunching, bat-chomping, view-blighting, rent-seeking monstrosities to be connected to the grid a huge 400kv power line is going to be constructed all the way from Montgomeryshire through some of Britains most spectacular scenery to the equally beauteous Shropshire. Its not just happening in Wales, of course. Alex Salmond is wreaking similar havoc in Scotland. Cumbria is under threat; so is the Kent Weald; so are the Mendips; so is the Isle of Wight; so are dozens of other beauty spots: first will come the wind farms themselves, with their vast concrete bases; then the power lines, over 300 miles worth, 160feet high.

Its one of those subjects that makes me so upset it leaves me almost lost for words. Ours is going to be the generation forced to witness the most grotesque act of vandalism ever committed against the British countryside and what makes it so much more painful is that there is no reasonable justification for it whatsoever. From wind farms to solar arrays to biofuels, Britain is committing both economic and aesthetic suicide. Even if one were to believe the discredited theory that CO2 is a dangerous driver of climate change, even then the argument for wind farms wouldnt wash because being so unreliable and sporadic in their power generation they replace not one single conventional power station.

The sheer madness of Britains energy policy is beautifully captured by Matt Ridley in this must-read Spectator article.

Welcome to the neo-medieval world of Britain’s energy policy. It is a world in which Highland glens are buzzing with bulldozers damming streams for miniature hydro plants, in which the Dogger Bank is to be dotted with windmills at Brobdingnagian expense, in which Heathrow is to burn wood trucked in from Surrey, and Yorkshire wheat is being turned into motor fuel. We are going back to using the landscape to generate our energy. Bad news for the landscape.

The industrial revolution, when Britain turned to coal for its energy, not only catapulted us into prosperity (because coal proved cheaper and more reliable than wood, wind, water and horse as a means of turning machines), but saved our landscape too. Forests grew back and rivers returned to their natural beds when their energy was no longer needed. Land that had once grown hay for millions of horses could grow food for human beings instead — or become parks and gardens.

Whether we like it or not, we are now reversing this policy, only with six times the population and a hundred times the energy needs. The government’s craven decision this week to placate the green pressure groups by agreeing a unilateral and tough new carbon rationing target of 50 per cent for 2027 — they wanted to water it down, but were frightened of being taken to judicial review by Greenpeace — condemns Britain to ruining yet more of its landscape. Remember that it takes a wind farm the size of Greater London to generate as much electricity as a single coal-fired power station — on a windy day (on other days we will have to do without). Or the felling of a forest twice the size of Cumbria every year.

Why is this madness happening? Why is nobody in a position of power or influence save the odd brave soul such as Glyn Davies, Tory MP for Montgomeryshire doing something to stop it before its too late?

Simple: its because the very environmentalists who ought to be campaigning against such wanton destruction have instead been responsible for fostering the warped thinking, junk science, and knee-jerk anti-capitalism which made it possible.

Consider George Monbiot: the man lives in Machllyneth, just down the road from the wind farm development, for Gods sake, yet here is as far as he is prepared to go in his Komment Macht Frei column on the subject:

Three conclusions seem obvious. Unless the new powerlines are buried, the renewables programme will stall: underground cables must become a firm green demand, though they will add significantly to the cost. Even so, its now clear that theres a limit to how much more renewable power can be deployed before it clatters into a mountain of public opposition. This is one of the reasons why we should start considering other options for decarbonising the electricity supply: especially new nuclear technologies such as thorium, integral fast reactors or travelling wave reactors.

Do you see the pusillanimity and muddled thinking, here? He has neither the intellectual lucidity nor the moral courage actively to oppose this utterly pointless desecration of his local landscape. All he can manage is an unrealistic demand that the powerlines be buried (aint gonna happen: renewables are expensive enough already), followed by a tacit admission that his most serious objection to renewables is not that theyre expensive, environmentally destructive and dont work, but merely that they are likely to generate a climate of public resentment towards decarbonisation.

And what about the Prince of Wales? Where is he in all this? Doesnt he have some connection or other with Wales and her people? Isnt that why, er, he went through that ceremony at Caernarfon in 1969? Isnt there something in his current title I forget which, though Im sure sharper-witted readers will be able to remind me that suggests a special concern for Wales might be part of his job?

Yet what does the man have to say about the most grotesque crime committed by Big Government against the Welsh people since Llewellyn Ap Gruffydd? What efforts has this famed floral conversationist, this defender of old-school values, this ex-foxhunting, stalking-about-the-Highland-Glens-with-his-crooked-stick countryman made to prevent a 100 square mile stretch of Britains most glorious countryside being transformed into a sterile Golgotha of wind towers?

Zip. Nada. Nothing.

Or as they say in Welsh (and I must say the word does seem peculiarly apt where our future King is concerned):

Dim.

Related posts:

  1. What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?
  2. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret
  3. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’
  4. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.

 

What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?

Toward a worse world.

"One day, son, all this will be wind farms and solar panels!"

“One day, son, all this will be wind farms and solar panels!”

Today, in that bastion of liberty and open markets the European Parliament, the Prince of Wales argued fervently for the inalienable right of our children and grandchildren to enjoy a worse standard of living than their parents.

Not, of course, that he put it quite so explicitly:

“There is, surely, no way round the fact that we have to move away from our conventional economic model of growth, based, as it is, on the production and consumption of high-carbon intensity goods.

“We need to meet the challenge of decoupling economic growth from increased consumption in such a way that both the well-being of Nature’s ecology and our own economic needs do not suffer.”

But which ever way you gloss it, the opposite of the “economic growth” is economic stagnation. That means a shrinking economy. That means – especially when you take into account population growth – a decreased GDP per capita. That means less disposable income, fewer creature comforts, fewer amenities, poorer healthcare, less travel and less leisure time for everyone. (Well, those whose kids aren’t heirs to the Duchy Originals fortune and who don’t own half of Cornwall, say) And apparently – so our future king thinks – we should accept all of this with joyful hearts because it’s for our own good.

Hard to believe that this is the son of a man who during the 1970s wrote learned papers on free market economics and is a patron of the classical liberal Mont Pelerin Society (founded by FA Hayek). Small wonder that the Prince Of Wales and his rather brighter father Prince Philip do not often see eye to eye.

It would be nice to dismiss all this – as Dan Hannan has done much more politely than I ever would – as the Neo-Malthusian drivel of a certified eco loon. The real worry, though, is not that the future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland thinks this way, but that so too does our both our current administration and its Opposition.

Today in Westminster, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne has been hosting an inquiry into perhaps the most exciting energy revolution in our lifetime. Shale gas will not only provide the world with cheap energy for many years to come but also free us from the shackles of our reliance on energy from such unstable places as Russia and the Middle East.

You might have thought this would be good news all round. And so it is. Shale gas is little short of miraculous: cheap, abundant, and available right on our doorstep. It is, as this article puts it, a global game changer. (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

The distribution of shale gas is so widespread that locally produced shale gas may become the standard fuel in many places. Traditional gas imports (by pipeline or as LNG) may become incremental sources.

The potential of shale gas implies a loss of political leverage for some sellers. For example, Russia has used threats of interruptions – and actual interruptions – like old-time gunboats, notably with Ukraine, but with other European countries too.

I recently attended a conference on shale gas in Poland on behalf of Mayer, Brown. The Poles share with other Europeans concerns about fracking, water recycling, and environmental issues. They have no tradition of American-style entrepreneurship. What they do have is reliance on Russia’s Gazprom in a power-constrained economy. They want to accelerate the development of their shale gas reserves. This story is repeated many places.

So whose advice is our Government is seeking on our energy future?

Well here, as Bishop Hill has noted, is a meeting which took place this morning in the House of Commons:

9 Energy and Climate Change

10.00 am Room 19 (private) 10.15 am (public)

Subject: Electricity Market Reform.

Witnesses: Riverstone, Citigroup Global Markets, Virgin Green Fund, and Climate Change Capital; RSPB, Greenpeace, WWF, and Friends of the Earth (at 11.15 am).

Hello. Excuse me. What on earth do environmental activist lobby groups have to do with Britain’s energy policy?

And here, as Bishop Hill has also noted, are some of the expert from this morning’s shale gas inquiry.

Who will give evidence?

At 9.45 am

  • Nigel Smith, Geologist, British Geological Survey, and
  • Professor Richard Selley, Petroleum Geologist, Imperial College London

At 10.45 am

  • Jenny Banks, Energy and Climate Change Policy Officer, WWF, and
  • Professor Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester

Yep. A geologist and a petroleum geologist. Fair enough. But Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre – the deep green activist group which recently called for a “managed recession” in order to curb the economic growth which is supposedly harming our environment? And a woman from the World Worldlife Fund?

Huhne’s is the same department, let it not be forgotten, which has now committed British energy users to paying an annual £360 million every year (to be added on to their electricity bills) in order to subsidise the feed-in tariffs for the country’s entirely pointless solar energy programme.

Britain is in trouble. Big trouble. Its energy policy is a disaster and it seems no one in any position of power has the courage or knowledge to speak up and explain why it’s a disaster. So while Prince Charles may hold forth in his airy, ill-informed, irresponsible way about climate “sceptics”

I would ask how these people are going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future.

the poor deluded fellow is talking out of his hat. It’s people like him, David Cameron and Chris Huhne who pose the real threat to our grandchildren’s future. Not all those decent, principled sceptics who are merely trying to observe above the shrill screeching of the mob that the climate emperor is wearing no clothes.

Related posts:

  1. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  2. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  3. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’
  4. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret

 

Prince of Wales to Give up His Aston Martin, Two Jags, Two Audis and Range Rover to Save Planet. Not.

According to the Prince of Wales’s expert calculations we have only 94 months left to save the planet from the perils of Man Made Climate Change.

Today he urges that we all do our bit by walking and using public transport a bit more, and using our cars less. I think this is an utterly brilliant idea. Like the Prince, whenever I drive around the country in my motor car, I find myself being quite repelled by the ghastliness of so many other road users. Their accents are frightful, their driving habits slovenly and their choice of music leaves a great deal to be desired. Quite a few of them, one imagines, don’t even have valets to put their toothpaste on their toothbrushes of an evening.

Get ‘em off the road and into buses, say I. Preferably buses without windows so one doesn’t have to look at them when one drives past in one’s bio-fuel-powered Aston Martin. Or one’s Range Rover. Or one’s two Jaguars. Or one’s two Audis.

And while we’re about it, let’s stop them all from flying too, shall we? It’s not as though any of these people achieve anything useful on their holidays, like galvanising captains of industry into screwing their smaller-scale competitors with their promises of carbon emissions reductions or painting sensitive water colours of hills near Sienna or climbing up and down Lochnagar with a shepherd’s crook.

Related posts:

  1. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret
  2. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  3. What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’

 

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

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

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

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

What? Eh? Quoi? In your dreams Moonbat!

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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