‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017

global warming protest
Annette Bernhardt/Flickr

“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.

Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.

Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.

Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today

Read the rest at Breitbart.

No, Stephen Hawking, Science Doesn’t Need Any Help from The European Union


Stephen Hawking and 150 other distinguished scientists – all fellows of the Royal Society – have written a letter to the (London) Times saying that if Britain leaves the European Union it would be a “disaster for UK science.”

No it wouldn’t.

Only 3 per cent of science R & D funding in Britain comes from the European Union. And it’s not as though we should be grateful for this sop: not when you consider that Britain puts far more into the EU than it gets back in return. If we were out, we could decide for ourselves how much we want to spend on science – and on which projects – rather than having a bunch of incompetent foreigners decide for us.

When I say “a bunch of incompetent foreigners” I mean just that. Look at the example of the EU’s flagship GPS project in which 28 states have come together in peace and unity and utter pointlessness to spunk Euros 13 billion of taxpayers’ money on a satellite navigation programme that no one actually needs any more because there’s a perfectly good one available already.

Is that the kind of science project we’d tragically miss out on if Britain were to quit the EU? Thirteen years delayed, three times overbudget and the space age equivalent of a chocolate ashtray? If so, I can’t say I’m going to be weeping too many bitter tears for the scientists we would have paid for to do that particular job.

Oh but what about CERN? Imagine! If it hadn’t been for the EU we might never have discovered the Higgs Boson…

Bollocks we wouldn’t have done.

Another of the myths being put about is that leaving the political structures of the EU will affect our participation in the CERN project – the European Organisation for Nuclear Research and home of the Large Hadron Collider. This is simply not true. CERN is an international collaboration of many countries, including many non-EU nations. The UK were founding members of the project back in 1954, and are currently CERN’s third largest contributor. The official status of the EU in respect to CERN is that of an OBSERVER, along with UNESCO, Russia, India, Japan and the USA.

Freedom of movement for scientists then. Think of all the brilliant researchers who’d be denied entry to Britain…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Extinct snail ‘killed’ by climate change crawls back from the dead – James Delingpole

September 10, 2014

The world’s first and only species to go “extinct” because of climate change has been found alive and well – and living where it always has for the past 80,000 or so years – on the Indian Ocean atoll of Aldabra.

Since 2007, the Aldabra Banded Snail (Rhachistia aldabrae) has been the chief poster mollusc of climate alarmists across the globe. That’s because – according to a peer-reviewed paper published by an “expert” in the field Justin Gerlach – it was the first extinction directly attributable to climate change.

In his paper, published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, Gerlach claimed:

The only known population of the Aldabra banded snail Rhachistia aldabraedeclined through the late twentieth century, leading to its extinction in the late 1990s. This occurred within a stable habitat and its extinction is attributable to decreasing rainfall on Aldabra atoll, associated with regional changes in rainfall patterns in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. It is proposed that the extinction of this species is a direct result of decreasing rainfall leading to increased mortality of juvenile snails.

Gerlach also ventured to suggest that his conclusion was the result of “exhaustive surveys” and “extensive surveys.”

But not that exhaustive or extensive, clearly.

The snail – quite handsome by molluscular standards, with a conical shell and a natty, black and reddish-pink go-faster stripe pattern – was recently rediscovered in “dense mixed scrub forest on the coastal fringe of Malabar island, Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles”.

This reduces to a grand total of zero the number of species extinctions around the world due to “climate change” – something which will no doubt prove gravely disappointing to global warming alarmists everywhere.


Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. ‘Everything dead by tomorrow!’ warns Zoological Society of London
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…
  4. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists

One thought on “Extinct snail ‘killed’ by climate change crawls back from the dead”

  1. Thomas Fox says:11th September 2014 at 1:20 pmWe readers of sound mind unlike the majority of environmentalists believe that you are correct in your denial of all that they preach or write about saving the planet by more renewables !

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Global Warming Jumps the Shark. The Week in Climate Stupid

This was the week when global warming jumped the shark. Just like it did last week. And the one before…

1. Soon children will have forgotten what outdoors looks like, claims HuffPo

Doctors at a Washington, D.C. paediatric clinic are increasingly prescribing sunshine and outdoors – “nature time” – for their young clients, reports Lynne Peeples for HuffPo.

But the story isn’t as heartwarming as you might think from the first paragraphs. That’s because stalking this charming scene like a ravening, blood-crazed, razor-fanged death creature with a sinister cowl kind of like a wicked evil monk’s probably concealing a grinning death’s head face and an evil as old as time, is climate change.

Yes, Peeples has managed to find at least two eco campaigners so shameless and utterly desperate that they have been prepared to put their names to quotes suggesting that “climate change” is threatening to make outdoors a no-go zone.

“Nature is critical to health,” says Martha Berger, a children’s health officer with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change, she added, could “further alienate kids from nature.”

“One of the things contributing to [kids not getting enough play outdoors], along with many societal factors, is that some of the conditions are becoming more difficult to deal with,” said Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, during a media call last month for the group’s report, “Ticked Off: America’s Outdoor Experience and Climate Change.”

2. Climate Change will kill your fluffy bunnies

Speaking on Australian national radio climate campaigner Naomi Oreskes warns ABC presenter Robyn Williams of the terrible future the world can expect as a result of climate change. Quoting from her new book The Collapse of Western Civilisation, she prophesies:

“The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment.”…

Williams, himself an ardent warmist, chips in with some deep insights of his own:

“Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things…And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, than it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it…”

Note to future historians trying to write the definitive book on The Decline And Fall Of Western Civilization:

Robyn Williams is one of Australia’s most prominent broadcasters.

Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, where she writes books, teaches impressionable undergraduates, and gets taken seriously.

Read the other three examples of climate stupid at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  4. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?


David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline | James Delingpole

June 30, 2012

With shale gas this won’t be covered in bloody wind turbines

David Cameron’s administration is in trouble, on this I think we can all agree. Even my menagerie of house trolls. It’s certainly what I’m hearing from Conservative insiders. “The whole party is on manoeuvres” – someone told me the other day, meaning that every half-way ambitious MP is positioning him or herself to take advantage of the Coalition’s inevitable implosion and Cameron’s almost-as-inevitable downfall. As another Tory boasted to me recently, “If there’s one thing we’re really good at in this party, it’s knifing our failing leaders in the back.”

So what’s Cameron to do? Is there really no way out of this mess for him? Well on current form I’d say definitely no. If Cameron carries on as he is, denying us the promised referendum on Europe, failing to cut government spending by anything like the amount it needs, doing nothing to address the high taxes and overregulation which are stifling small business enterprises, then he is definitely – and rightly – toast and the future will look something like this. 2015 Miliband/monkey in a red rosette wins general election; 2015-2020 Men said openly that Christ and his saints slept. 2020 Alleluia! A red meat Tory gets in, perhaps Boris, perhaps Gove, perhaps someone like Priti Patel…

But there’s still a chance for Dave, if he plays his cards right – and it has just arrived in the form of the new joint report published by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society on fracking.

Prof Robert Mair, chair of the panel, said: “The risks associated with fracking can be managed effectively in the UK, provided operational best practices are implemented and enforced through effective regulation.”

Never mind all the health and safety provisos: that’s just a*se-covering. The key point – the only point, indeed – of the report is that Cameron’s government now has the excuse it needs to press ahead and take advantage of the best thing that has happened to Britain since the discovery of North Sea oil: shale gas.

I have written on several occasions about the Shale Gas Miracle. The only thing that stands in its way is propaganda, superstition and vested interests. We saw the latter factor heavily at work in the recent sham Downing Street seminar in which “industry experts” concluded that Britain’s shale gas reserves were smaller than first thought and uneconomical to extract. Except, oddly enough, the company best in the position to comment on this – Cuadrilla Resources – was mysteriously uninvited.

As for the arguments about “earthquakes”. These are overdone, as Matt Ridley is among many to have noted.

It is now official: drilling for shale gas by fracturing rock with water may rattle the odd teacup, but is highly unlikely to cause damaging earthquakes. That much has been obvious to anybody who has followed the development of the shale gas industry in America over the past ten years. More than 25,000 wells drilled have caused a handful of micro-seismic events that can barely be felt.

The two rumbles that resulted from drilling a well near Blackpool last year were tiny. To call a two-magnitude tremor an earthquake is a bit like calling a hazelnut lunch. Such tremors happen naturally more than 15 times a year but go unnoticed and they are a common consequence of many other forms of underground work such as coalmining and geothermal drilling. Earthquakes caused by hydroelectric projects, in which dams load the crust and lubricate faults, can be much greater and more damaging. The Sichuan earthquake that killed 90,000 in 2008 was probably caused by a dam.

So too are the claims about water contamination:

What about groundwater contamination? This too is mostly hogwash. Since there is usually a mile of rock between aquifers and where the fracking happens, contamination from fracking is highly implausible. More than 25,000 wells have been sunk and there has only been a handful of potential contamination events, most of which proved to be natural. Of course, failure of the well casing or surface chemical spills can happen occasionally, as in any industry. But the chemicals used in fracking – less than 0.5 per cent of the solution used to displace the gas – are ordinary chemicals of the kind that you find under your kitchen sink: disinfectants, surfactants and the like.

No, as Matt Ridley goes on to argue in his must-read piece, the real opposition to shale gas is political not scientific. And nowhere is this politically motivated opposition stronger than in the renewables industry which rightly fears that if the truth about shale gas ever gets out – that it’s cheap, abundant AND more environmentally friendly than wind or solar – it will soon be put out of business.

So Cameron has a choice. Either he can continue to ally himself with the Lib Dems, DECC,  big corporations and vested interests (such as the noisome Shell), green activist organisations such as the Guardian and Friends of the Earth, and all those rent seeking toerags taking advantage of the great wind and solar scams – thus guaranteeing massive hikes in energy prices, a continuation of the economic slump and the ongoing devastation of the British countryside with wind farms and the power lines needed to carry their erratic, unreliable, expensive energy.

Or he can take the option which will create real jobs, boost the British economy, lower energy prices, save the British countryside from destruction – and (for those who care about such nonsense) reduce Britain’s CO2 output to boot.

The last one may sound incredible but it’s already happened in the US, as Ridley notes:

The Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science concluded in February that the surprise fall in America’s carbon emissions – by 7 per cent in 2009, probably more since – was caused largely by a switch from coal to shale gas. “A slight shift in the relative prices of coal and natural gas can result in a sharp drop in carbon emissions,” according to Professor Michael McElroy, who led the study.

Will Cameron seize this heaven-sent opportunity to boost his green credentials AND save the economy AND save the countryside AND win the hearts and minds of conservative and rural Britain AND make his Chancellor a very happy bunny?

Ideologically, I’d suggest not. Remember, this is the man who once famously said: “I’ve just been speaking to Al Gore and he really knows his stuff.”

But the thing you have to remember is that Cameron, above all, is a survivor with a knack of pulling things out of the hat at the last minute. This is the perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate his skill at government by essay crisis. I doubt anything quite so convenient will present itself ever again. Maybe Gove should have a word…

Related posts:

  1. David Cameron’s worst nightmare
  2. How can you tell when Dave Cameron’s lying?
  3. ‘Anyone who thought Love Actually was a bit crap please leave…’
  4. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

4 thoughts on “David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline”

  1. Anthony says:6th July 2012 at 10:20 pmDear Mr. Delingpole,
    When did you realize that being a contrarian was your passport to financial gain? I’d love to know.
    How about starting a new cult?

    1. Ewoznac says:6th July 2012 at 11:11 pmAs opposed to say Al Gore’s 8 figure windfall from his climate rantings? An alarmist windfall which would have been billions, if Copenhagen had worked as the organisers were hoping?
      1. Anon says:10th July 2012 at 5:25 amDoesn’t take long for the denial community to start the Gore bashing routine if all else fails.
  2. Martin Lack says:11th July 2012 at 1:43 pmWith any due respect, James, anyone who thinks that Fracking is the answer… is asking the wrong question.

    I know you refuse to accept the nature of reality but anyone who accepts that the ongoing climate disruption we are now witnessing… (presumably you have noticed that record-breaking temperatures in the USA and accept that if it is raining in the UK the Law of Conservation of Mass dictates that it must be failing to rain elsewhere)… Ahem, any such person will also conclude that now is the time to stop mining fossil fuels NOT find new kinds to exploit…

    You know, when in a hole stop digging kind of thing…

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch

Last week I was stitched up like a kipper by the BBC.

Perhaps you saw the programme — a Horizon documentary called Science Under Attack. Perhaps you were even among the dozens whom it inspired to send me hate emails along the lines of, ‘Ha ha. Think you know more about science than a Nobel prizewinner do you? Idiot!’ Perhaps it’s time I set the record straight.

It started in August last year when I had an email from a BBC producer/director called Emma Jay. She was making a film on ‘public trust in science’ to be presented by the next President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse. ‘The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions,’ she wrote. ‘Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white-coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers — their failings will be dealt with in detail.’ As an ‘influential blogger on climate change’, would I chat to Nurse about my views? Though I had my suspicions, I agreed after Emma had reassured me that Nurse was genuinely open-minded on the subject and had no axe to grind.

In fact I was rather looking forward to the meeting. It’s not often you get an actual Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine, 2001) popping round to your home. Besides, I was keen to find out what he planned to do about the Royal Society’s increasingly embarrassing position on anthropogenic global warming.AdTech Ad

Both his predecessors — Lord May and Lord Rees — were fanatical warmists and shifted the Royal Society’s politics accordingly. Last year, 43 of the Royal Society’s members wrote in protest at its advocacy of what remains an unproven hypothesis. By allying itself so closely to the politicised ‘consensus’, the Royal Society seemed to be betraying its traditions of honest scepticism (‘Nullius in verba’) and also running the risk of one day being proved humiliatingly wrong.

What I didn’t properly consider — though of course I should, having done the odd bit of TV myself — is how documentaries like this really work. When your presenter announces, as he so often does, that he is ‘going on a journey of discovery’, he is in fact doing no such thing. Right from the start, often before the presenter has even been chosen, the director and producer know exactly where the film is going and what it is going to say. The interviewees are mere pawns: the camera is to be pointed at them until such time as they can be prodded into saying what the documentary requires.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. The Nobel Prize: way deadlier, more damaging and evil than dynamite
  2. Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe!
  3. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

One thought on “I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch”

  1. Nige Cook says:13th February 2011 at 11:53 amFearless Frank, if you replay the video a few times, http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=3Un7u2AZnjw&vq=medium#t=14 you see the that James gave the right answer. Nurse believes the Club of Rome’s 1974 claim in its report Mankind at the Turning Point: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man”, so he uses this cancer diagnosis consensus argument on James Delingpole, who after hours of discussion (edited out by the BBC and Nurse) has told Nurse that AGW is “not science”.

    The cancer analogy presumes that the earth has cancer. In 1974 when the Club of Rome formulated it, the consensus was that global cooling (due to dust and pollution from natural volcanic eruptions and from industry) was screening out sunlight, and we were in for runaway glaciation and a new ice age. This was even popularized in the 1967 BBC Dr Who sci fi tale, “The Ice Warriors”, where future Britain is being swamped by glaciers.

    AWG is not science, but is a political manipulation due to efforts to promote ignorance by using “peer”-review to censor out the NASA scientists who discovered the facts about negative feedback on CO2 temperature changes from increased cloud cover, and “hide the decline” lying using data fidding from tree rings (which aren’t a proxy for temperature, since tree growth in the real world is sensitive to other factors, especially cloud cover). They don’t have any mechanism for CO2 to affect temperature. The earth is not a greenhouse, because you don’t have any cloud cover inside a greenhouse! Pumping out more CO2 just affects the cloud cover, not the temperature.

    If anyone is pathetic, it’s not James.

Comments are closed.

What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans Thinks about Global Warming

Looking down on Earth. . .

Chris Evans (CE) and Moira Stewart (MS) discuss Global Warming.

CE: So, listen, I watched ‘Science under Attack’ last night – this programme, the one presented by Sir Paul Nurse, the new president of the Royal Society. It was both excellent, it was bewildering at the same time – it was all about how scientists are failing to get new facts over, and suffering as a consequence. They’re sort of shouldering some of the blame themselves. Global Warming was the main vehicle used to portray his point: lots of people don’t believe it’s happening despite overwhelming data to suggest that it is. Why do so many hundreds of millions of people believe these very clever and dedicated people are lying? That’s very worrying, isn’t it? Don’t you think?

MS: Yeah, yeah, apparently they haven’t been, but they’re very well meaning and giving us findings…

CE: And you can tell.

MS: But, but, (I didn’t realise until far too late,) back in the Middle Ages, it was very, very warm and whatever. I thought that we peoples were freezing to death. Apparently Britain didn’t get that cold…what I’m trying to say is that there are cycles….

CS: Don’t beat yourself up about that, that you’ve only just cottoned on to the fact. The Earth has warmed and cooled, but the thing is, what they said is that it’s cooling at such an exponential rate now that that’s never happened before, and you know, some people don’t believe that maybe we’re contributing to this. But listen, science apart, right, if you light a fire, your living room warms up, doesn’t it? It’s not rocket science!

MS: Indeed, indeed.

CE: It has to be proven because so much is at stake. Scientists have to prove it for the benefit of the rest of us. But if you look at, you know….what was fascinating by the way, is that NASA spend £2m a year with their satellites looking back down to the Earth, so they send things off to space to try and ensure the future safety of Earth, because all these things back in space looking back down to Earth. But they spend £2m a year studying Global Warming, which I don’t think is that much. It’s so crucial – if you think: Wayne Rooney earns £5m a year. Right, the world spends a third of his wages a year on studying whether or not we’re frying ourselves.

MW: We don’t want to know.

CE: No, we don’t want to know. We’re sticking our head in the sand.

MS: But even in my lifetime, from childhood through to now […]when we were using coal and whatever else […]Britain for instance had a terrible atmosphere and it was…if you blew your nose you got black  out of your nostrils because of the fog etc…fog and the smog. And yet now we have cleaner air and a cleaner atmosphere, why aren’t we getting a cooler temperature?


Related posts:

  1. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’
  2. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  3. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

One thought on “What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming”

  1. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 11:34 pmChris Evans: “Global Warming was the main vehicle used to portray his point: lots of people don’t believe it’s happening despite overwhelming data to suggest that it is. Why do so many hundreds of millions of people believe these very clever and dedicated people are lying? That’s very worrying, isn’t it? Don’t you think? … The Earth has warmed and cooled, but the thing is, what they said is that it’s cooling at such an exponential rate now that that’s never happened before, and you know, some people don’t believe that maybe we’re contributing to this. But listen, science apart, right, if you light a fire, your living room warms up, doesn’t it? It’s not rocket science! … But they spend £2m a year studying Global Warming, which I don’t think is that much. It’s so crucial – if you think: Wayne Rooney earns £5m a year. Right, the world spends a third of his wages a year on studying whether or not we’re frying ourselves.”

    I don’t agree with Chris Evans. Science isn’t about money! I remember the first time I read a paper on global warming, which was one in Nature around 1980, from the noe-discredited climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. This overturned the 1970s consensus that we were headed for an ice age. Volcanic dust was apparently causing global cooling in the 1970s. Then they switched to global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

    It’s exactly analogous, both in its contemporary chronology and in its groupthink mentality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink , one thing Wikipedia DOES define well, for obvious reasons!) to string theory in particle physics!

    The roots of both theories go back to a few people, not taken seriously, in the 1960s. String theory and global warming first started to be taken seriously in the 1970s. String theory was reformulated from hadronic string theory in the 70s, and global warming received its first major publicity in 1975 from a founding conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead and 1950s RAND Corporation nuclear weapons fallout prediction expert Dr William Kellogg. Kellogg sank RAND Corp’s 1950s fallout prediction computer model by formulating it in terms of very wooden assumptions (a static mushroom cloud, with particles unaffected by the central updraft and the toroidal downdraft around the periphery), unlike the rival USNRDL “dynamic” or D-model of fallout, which allowed heavy particles to fallout while small ones were still rising.

    Kellogg’s wooden physics approach seemed to become embossed into the fabric of climate prediction models, including the notorious 1980s “nuclear winter” climate models, which neglected the prompt rainout of soot from firestorm precipitation such as occurred in Hiroshima. Paul Cruzen’s climate model of nuclear winter was put to the test courtesy of Saddam setting ablaze the oil wells in Kuwait in 1992, and failed miserably (as I’ve blogged in detail elsewhere).

    The thing that really proves to me that the earth’s climate is stable no matter how much CO2 we pump in is not theory but fact: the K-T event 65 million years ago. A 100 million megatons explosion due to an impact. The climatic effects failed to extinguish life on earth. The firestorms would have produce an enormous injection of CO2 as well as soot, and the impact crater in partially calcium carbonate rock would have produced direct CO2 from the reduction of that rock, but neither the “nuclear winter” not the subsequent global warming extinguished life. It’s pretty obvious that the oceans of this planet make the climate stable.

    If it gets too hot, the oceans heat up, evaporation increases, high altitude clouds form, and they reflect back sunlight and shade the surface more, compensating and regulating temperatures so that life survives.

    It is interesting that once you get outside groupthink “consensus science”, you find a complete shambles because the training of scientists doesn’t prepare them to work alone like Newton or Darwin on some revolutionary theory that others consider crackpot simply because it’s “unorthodox”. Scientific orthodoxy is full of bullshit doublethink, well illustrated in the Horizon “documentary” where Sir Paul emulates the hypocrisy of Dr Zaius in the 1968 Planet of the Apes. Dr Zaius is both Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith. Any groupthink consensus masquerading as a science, such as the Royal Society, is going to be led by a Dr Zaius. It’s inevitable. In a sense, we have to have a grudging respect for Sir Paul in his determination not to shirk his responsibility in this matter.

Comments are closed.

Oh No, Not Another Unbiased BBC Documentary about ‘Climate Change’…

A distinguished institution falters

Little known fact: there was an era when the Royal Society represented something more than the official scientific spokesman for Greenpeace

Little known fact: there was an era when the Royal Society represented something more than the official scientific spokesman for Greenpeace

The new president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse has been crowing to the Guardian’s environment pages about how he bested me in a documentary for the BBC on Climate Change. This isn’t how I remember it.

Nurse came to interview me at my home last summer, ostensibly – so his producer assured me – as a disinterested seeker-after-truth on a mission to discover why the public is losing its faith in scientists. “Not scientists,” I replied. “Just ‘climate scientists.'” But as is clear from the Horizon documentary Nurse had already made up his mind. That’s why about the only section he used out of at least three hours’ worth of footage is the one where he tosses what he clearly imagines is the killer question: Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?

As you’ll see in the programme, this took me rather by surprise. Nurse had come posing as an open-minded investigator eager to hear why Climategate had raised legitimate doubts about the reliability of the “consensus” on global warming. Instead, the man I met was a parti-pris bruiser so delighted with his own authority as a proper Nobel-prizewinning scientist that he knew what the truth was already. And to prove it, here was a brilliant analogy which would rubbish the evil climate deniers’ cause once and for all!

But Nurse’s analogy is shabby, dishonest and patently false. The “consensus” on Climate Change; and the “consensus” on medical care bear no similarity whatsoever.

In the field of medicine, treatments are tested in a semi-open market. Those with more favourable outcomes (the patient gets better) will quickly gain popularity over those with less favourable outcomes (the patient gets worse). Sure there are market distortions (eg the vast marketing budgets and rampant greed of the big drug companies; inefficiency and incompetence in the public healthcare sector), but generally in the field of medicine, the “consensus” on what constitutes good, bad or indeed “quack” treatment is a fair representation of the facts as they are currently known and empirically tested.

The “consensus” on ‘Climate Change’, by contrast, is a figment of Al Gore’s – and, I’m sorry to say, Sir Paul Nurse’s – imagination. It exaggerates the number of scientists who believe in Man Made Global Warming and it grotesquely underestimates the number who have many good reasons for suspecting that there is far, far more to “Climate Change” than anthropogenic CO2.

What’s more such “consensus” as there is is an artificial construct. It has not been subjected to the rigour of an open or even semi-open market. It is the creation, almost entirely, of politically-driven funding from US government, from various UN bodies, from the EU, from left-leaning charitable foundations on a scale unprecedented in the history of science. So far, in real terms, no less than five times the amount of the Manhattan Project has been squandered on research into AGW. For that kind of money you can buy an awful lot of scientists prepared to suspend any belief they might have that global warming is anything other than man-made. (I put this point to Nurse but he wasn’t having it. As a scientist he just “knew” that scientists didn’t behave like that.)

But you can’t say all that in a TV friendly sound bite. And even if I’d managed, it would no doubt have ended up with the rest of the three hours’ of reasonably cogent argument I made to Nurse – on the cutting room floor.

At the end of the programme, Nurse argues that it is vital that the quest for scientific truth should be divorced from politics. I don’t think he’ll find anyone in the ‘sceptic’ community who disagrees with him on that. What’s depressing is that he seems to have reached this conclusion in defiance of almost everything he has said in the previous hour.

In Nurse’s Weltanschauung, NASA’s temperature records must correct because, well just look at all those spiffy satellite charts this nice man from NASA is showing me and he’s a proper scientist so he should know; and Phil Jones is clearly a man more sinned against than sinning, because look here he is all broken and rueful (and he’s a proper scientist, you know, unlike all those deniers) telling me why Climategate was about how a few innocent emails were distorted by horrid deniers.

Meanwhile, according to Nurse and his execrable documentary, climate change “deniers” are on a par with people who don’t believe that AIDs is caused by the HIV virus and people who destroy GM crops (eh??? Since when did we have any truck with those eco-loons?). Is this really the level of intellectual sophistication we might have hoped for from the new president of the world’s most distinguished scientific association?

Or rather, of the world’s ex- most distinguished scientific association. As I’ve reported before, the Warmist bias of the Royal Society has become such a standing joke that last year 43 of its fellows wrote in to complain. Under its two previous presidents, Lord May and Lord Rees, it has tossed aside its traditions of lofty neutrality and eagerly embraced a new role as political activist for the green lobby.

Perhaps there was a time when this made some kind of warped sense. But with no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a succession of bitter winters, scandals cropping up every day about everything from Met Office incompetence to skullduggery in the EU carbon trading business, growing doubts in the scientific community about the validity of climate models, demands in the US for law suits against dodgy client scientists, and increasing public scepticism, it is only a matter of time before the AGW industry collapses and all those people who associated themselves with it suddenly look very foolish.

With his new documentary Nurse has sent out a signal that, bright boy though he thinks he is, he is happy to be taken for one of those fools. If he wants to join the Warmist lemmings on their final dash, that’s his look out. But what a pity for the rest of us that he’ll be taking the credibility of the Royal Society over the cliff with him.

Related posts:

  1. Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo boo
  2. Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe!
  3. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’
  4. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story

12 thoughts on “Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…”

  1. R.N. Quayle says:26th January 2011 at 3:15 amNurse was a coward.

    He should have taken on the MMR-deniers.

    ie. the thousands of mothers of U.S. & UK children,
    who developed autism & chronic bowell disease,
    within hours/days of being MMRd.

    Pure coincidence of course.

  2. Steve Win says:26th January 2011 at 11:40 pmOh Mr Delingpole, how utterly and completely wrong you are.

    Sir Paul Nurse made you look EXACTLY as you are. A complete and total ass. Clearly you don’t remember it because most of the time you were so interested in the only subject that interests you. I refer to you of course. Arrogant, self centred but best of all, ill informed which came across very clearly.

  3. Groper says:27th January 2011 at 8:04 amHey Jimbo, no point in sour grapes. I think it’s the fault of BBC Horizon for using a mickey mouse denialist instead of an informed sceptic. Still, Jimbo, at least you provided a great comedy moment for the world to see… keep it up bon3head.
  4. Ratty says:27th January 2011 at 1:22 pmJames, I thought that Nurse was far too easy on you. Perhaps that expression on his face was one of sad resignation, like you’d find when dealing with a child who just can’t grasp a basic idea.

    Just because a whole range of people disagree with your point of view, doesn’t make it a conspiracy or a biased presentation. It just means you’re wrong! Maybe you should take stock of the things you write and see if you are really aiding the debate on climate science or just promoting a half-baked and ill-informed view of the world that you’ve formed for yourself without really understanding the bigger picture, or how to disseminate the information you trawl through. I can’t imagine you having the character to admit to your shortcomings or admit where you don’t know enough to make a valid comment. Please do the world a favour and either quietly slip away or brand all your output with the health warning “not qualified to comment”.

    If that all sounds very patronising, it’s meant to be.

  5. Keith Gale says:27th January 2011 at 5:57 pmUnfortunately James you’ve fallen into the trap of dignifying one of these intellectually challenged myopics with a response. The Dawkins method is more efficient. Treat them as lunatics and let them rant. I have no doubt that within a few years most of them will have disappeared back into the woodwork denying they ever said anything. Exactly like the eugenics fans. Monbiot seems to be heading that way.
    It’s very sad that most people get all their information from the media and never question any of it. I’m including scientists in “most people”. We tend to think of them as brilliant academics who go around discovering wonderful things and indeed some of them are but the other 99% are very dull, unimaginative, quite thick and desperately trying to come up with an original thought. “Science”, our knowledge of the universe, is massive and populated by specialists. Experts in one small field with just a basic knowledge of the rest of it and no hope of ever catching up.
    This Nursey chap seems to be a scientist on his mothers side. In fact to call yourself a scientist and deride the opinions of others is a form of fraud.
    A debate exists if you look and looking objectively at both sides it becomes painfully obvious that we don’t have a clue what the climate will do. The statistics and numbers thrown around by the IPCC are desperate guesstimates to keep the funds coming and the pollies going. Just like the scientists there are very few of these who are aware of anything outside their own little worlds.
  6. Nige Cook says:27th January 2011 at 10:09 pmHi James,

    I’ve made a You Tube video pointing out the deceptions in Sir Paul Nurse’s climate documentary documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Un7u2AZnjw

    (It’s also embedded at the top of my latest blog post about the lies on the physics of the effects of nuclear weapons: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/ )

    Kind regards,

    Nige Cook

  7. Marco says:28th January 2011 at 9:36 pmJames I just saw the bbc horizon documentary. Do you really think that you need to tell a Nobel Laureate where science is going, as if you know more about these things than you? It makes you look like a total and utter muppet.
  8. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 6:02 pmMarco,

    I think that the situation is actually the other way around.

    If you watch the video carefully, it seems that the Nobel Laureate and Royal Society president, Sir Paul Nurse, was the one who visited James for a chat and asked his opinion.

    The whole problem with the video is that he chose to visit critics and persuade them to change their mind by arguing that cancer is analogous to the question of whether humanity can adapt to climate change.

    He ignores all of facts, and falsely claims that nobody knows why tree ring data fails to match air temperatures since 1960. Actually, tree ring growth is not directly related to air temperature alone, but depends on rainfall, humidity, smog (absorbing sunlight), cloud cover, etc., etc. You can verify this by looking at trees in the shade (on the northern slopes of hills) and trees in parched areas. The tree ring sizes only correlate to air temperature if all other factors are constant, which they never are (outside the lab).

    Why did Sir Paul Nurse interview a journalist to find out about climate change? You must ask yourself that! Answer: it was a hatchet job, with pre-planned silly questions about consensus being science. Nurse goes wrong in defending status quo by showing off Newton’s Principia and Darwin’s Origin of Species in the library scene: these were revolutionary works which emerged not from “groupthink” consensus, but from individuals refuting groupthink consensus!

    Evolution and the laws of motion were not the result of “stamp collecting” by a team effort, they were essentially the work of individuals, fighting against authority (Aristotle’s authority in Newton’s case, the Bible in Darwin’s).

    All tree ring temperature data is false because it 1. fails to fit the records since 1960, 2. ignores cloud cover and shade variations over the years, 3. ignores dust and chemical smog, 4. ignores variations in rainfall rates, and 5. ignores variations in wind patterns over the years.

    Dr Phil Jones can’t seriously believe tree ring data, and nor can Sir Paul Nurse. Similarly, cloud cover blocks reliable surface air temperature global averaging by satellite measurements, while weather station data can be affected by local sources of heat pollution (unrelated to global CO2 effects). If we look at the actual sea rise rate, it is 20 cm over the past century (0.20 cm/year) compared to 120 m over the past 18,000 years (0.67 cm/year average). This is misleading, because the a lot of the 120 m rise occurred over a shorter period of time, at an even faster rate than 0.67 cm/year.

    Therefore, the current rate of global warming sea level rise is trivial compared to natural rates. We can adapt to it. The “big lie” of eco-evangelism is that we must try to fight global warming, not adapt to it. Physicist Dr John Baez points out that many simple solutions exist, like nuclear power. Some of the propaganda from New Scientist is neatly exposed by Dr Helene Guldberg (an Open University lecturer) in her 2001 article Eco-evangelism, http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D081.htm , states:

    “Jeremy Webb, editor of the New Scientist, started by emphasising that human beings have ‘as much destructive potential’ as that which brought about former mass extinctions – where up to 90 percent of species were wiped out. Just look at BSE (What? How many bovine species have gone extinct as a result of BSE?), HIV (Again, what does this tell us about the human destructive potential?) and global warming (But, Jeremy, the history of the planet has been one of far greater temperature fluctuations than those predicted for the coming century). …

    “When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, ‘But why take the risk?’ What did he mean: ‘Why take the risk of living?’ You could equally say ‘Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?’ But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya.

    “One of the speakers responded to my point, that there is evidence that the air is cleaner today than several decades ago (rather than ‘being turned into a sewer’). Yes, she said, that may be true, but clean air can also be a problem.”

  9. David A says:29th January 2011 at 10:13 pmJames: I tried to post this on your Daily Telegraph blog, but without success:

    Here is a short excerpt from the Horizon programme. I would be interested to learn how much editorial control Sir Paul had on the final programme. I can state categorically that I don’t trust the integrity of the BBC on any issue whatsoever and on any subject whatsoever, especially the biased so-called News.

    Sir Paul Nurse:
    “As a scientist, I find Tony’s [HIV does not CAUSE AIDS] views hard to understand.”

    The following is slightly edited. He brilliantly (in my opinion) explains why correlation on its own is not the same as proof of causation and unwittingly (in my opinion) makes the case for the skeptics. Essentially, he is arguing against himself.

    Sir Paul Nurse:
    “However, there may be a link between how he approaches the evidence for the causes of AIDS, and how some climate skeptics may look at the causes of Global Warming. Problems arise when you are studying complex data and trying to distinguish cause from effect. Understanding what causes what in complex systems like biology that I study, or climate, can be really difficult. Let me illustrate that, here. Imagine that each of these poles [shows three poles] are different events ; events “A” “B” and “C” . . .
    Event “A” causes event “B”. Event “A” also causes event “C”. But if you are a scientist [and] you don’t know anything about event “A” and you are simply studying “B” and “C”, then what you will see is that after a certain period of time you will see “B” and always (or nearly always) you will see “C” a certain time afterwards. It would be a natural consequence to think that “B” might CAUSE “C” when that is absolutely not the case. Here is a concrete example ; smoking and lung cancer. Let’s imagine that event “A” here [the cause] is smoking; let’s imagine that event “B” is yellow teeth that occurs after a certain amount of time and let’s imagine that event “C” is lung cancer. You could, perhaps, imagine, as a scientist, that you observe yellow teeth and then you observe lung cancer and maybe [conclude that] yellow teeth causes lung cancer. That’s obviously nonsense but if you didn’t know about smoking, then you could perhaps be led into that erroneous conclusion. So that’s the problem with complexity; that’s the problem with working out what causes what.”

    “There’s an overwhelming body of evidence that says WE are warming our planet. But complexity allows for confusion and for alternative theories to develop. The only solution is to look at all the evidence as a whole. I think some extreme skeptics decide what to think first and then cherry-pick the data to support their case. We scientists have to acknowledge we now operate in a world where point-of-view, not peer review holds sway.”

    The following is a GROSS simplification of the mechanism of CAGW. Sir Paul did NOT say the following but it follows his general argument about separating cause and correlation:

    “Here is a concrete example ; the Sun and global temperature rise. Let’s imagine that event “A” here [the heat engine] is primarily the Sun; let’s imagine that event “B” is the increase in carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere after the consequent heating of the oceans by the increasing heat output from the Sun after a certain amount of time and let’s imagine that event “C” is the global atmospheric temperature rise caused by the Sun. You could, perhaps, imagine, as a scientist, that you observe increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [increasing carbon dioxide is released from a warming ocean] and then you observe an increase in global temperatures and maybe [conclude that] carbon dioxide directly causes [large] temperature increases rather than the Sun. That’s obviously nonsense, but if you didn’t know that the heat from the Sun warms the oceans and indirectly increases the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then you could perhaps be led into that erroneous conclusion.”

    It seems to me that Sir Paul is arguing that, if a consensus of scientists shows a good correlation between HIV and AIDS or else a good correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature rise, then that correlation is proof of causation – a consensus of correlation is equivalent to proof of causation.

    Again: the above analogy is a GROSS simplification of climate science as it is known by both believers and skeptics.

  10. David A says:30th January 2011 at 10:38 amIn the event that any reader is interested, here are some links to articles describing “HIV is not the CAUSE of AIDS” skepticism.

    The first is by Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Kary Mullis:
    Book Excerpt By Kary Mullis

    The second is an interview with prominent HIV=AIDS ‘denialist’, Peter Duesberg:
    Interview with Peter Duesberg
    By Bob Guccione, Jr.
    Spin Sept. 1993

    The third is the opposite point of view, by Nicoli Nattrass. Notice how similar is the language she uses compared with the language used by warmists when denigrating climate change ‘deniers’. Just mentally change “AIDS” to “climate change” and “HIV” to “CO2” and “denier and denialist” to “denier and denialist” and you would be hard pressed to tell any difference.
    AIDS Denialism vs. Science
    Nicoli Nattrass

  11. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 10:43 amDavid:

    George Bernard Shaw opposed immunization statistical evidence, and distrusted the statistics purporting to show a fall in communicable diseases as immunization increased:

    “He hired somebody to count up the telegraph poles erected in various years … and it turned out that telegraph poles were being increased in number. He said, ‘Therefore, this is clear evidence that the way to eliminate communicable diseases is to build a lot more telegraph poles’.

    “All I would like to say here is that the important point is that if you really want to understand it, you have to look at the mechanism of the occurrence. I think this is where the emphasis should lie.”

    – Dr H. L. Friedell, testimony to the Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, The Nature of Radioactive Fallout and Its Effects on Man, June 1959, page 1001.

    Dr Phil Jones shies away from provable mechanisms in climatic science, such as homeostasis.

    ct like Venus?

    Dr Zagoni and Dr Miskolczi have proved that substantial further global warming may be prevented by a remarkably simple and provable mechanism: the existing temperature rise in the oceans has increased evaporation and thus cloud cover, reflecting back more sunlight into space, so that on balance evaporated water has an anti-greenhouse effect.

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

    Unlike certain other planets in the solar system, our planet is uniquely UNLIKE a greenhouse because 70% of it’s surface is covered in oceans, seas and lakes, so any initial rise in temperature (once the deep water heats up, which takes years due to the high specific heat capacity of water) increases the evaporation rate, forming more cloud which thus reflects back a larger percentage of the incoming solar radiation, thereby regulating the Earth’s temperature like a thermostat!

    If you actually make a greenhouse with an ocean and clouds in it, then you have a model for the earth. Without the ocean and clouds, sorry, the greenhouse is not a model for the earth.

    “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.” (Dr. M. Zagoni.)

    Hence, the increased evaporation has not turned into infrared-absorbing humid air, instead it has turned into increased cloud cover, which reflects back sunlight into space and keeps the temperature under control. This is why Dr Jones had to keep his data secret and fiddle it under orders from the World Meteorological Organization for their report. “Complicated” is the WMO euphemism for “politically correct”. Dr Jones made his data uncomplicated, and thus politically correct, on WMO orders. James should really go after the WMO bigots.

  12. David A says:30th January 2011 at 4:41 pmJames: You might wish to remove the last one or possibly two paragraphs of this comment post if you consider them “over the top”. Please remove these first two sentences.

    To Nige Cook:

    Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my post and for the interesting information you have included in your reply.

    Before I had posted my comments, I had taken an inordinate amount of time in transcribing Sir Paul’s remarks about the relationships between cause, effect and correlation. Unfortunately, I didn’t leave much time for the rest of my post. In my defence, I did mention (twice) that my description of climate science was grossly simplified. As it happens, I don’t think that a heating (or cooling) of the atmosphere is directly or solely caused by the actual heating (or cooling) of the Sun, but I do think that the Sun is the main driver of both weather and climate and not the minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The point that I was trying to make was that Sir Paul’s remarks could be turned around – the case for the prosecution (warmists) could be turned around to make a good case for the defence (skeptics), as it were.

    I don’t think anyone would deny that climate science is complicated. The warmists magnify any heating effect (from multiple causes) by stressing the positive feedback effects whilst (in the main) ignoring the self-correcting (negative) feedback effects.
    From the information that you have included in your post, it would seem that the negative feedback mechanisms of water vapour/ evaporation etc. can cope admirably in regulating the Earth’s atmospheric temperature.

    Don’t get me started on that odious Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw!
    In addition to being a Leftist eugenicist, he was also an Holodomor (murder by starvation) denier. As most people know, the International Socialists under Josef Stalin intentionally and systematically starved to death millions of Ukrainians even though there had been a good harvest that year. Details can be found on Edvins Snore’s documentary, “The Soviet Story”.

    When warmists imply that global warming skeptics are “deniers”, I rather resent the implication that skeptics are Holodomor deniers. I take it that that is the kind of Holocaust that they are referring to and not the one by the National Socialists?


Comments are closed.

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

Ben’s a “true believer”Goldacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Libertarians are like that. Selfish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How exactly is that unreasonable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1950

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

    – Frederick Forsyth, 2005

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


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

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

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

    “What is truth?” – Pilate.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed.

Royal Society: doh! | James Delingpole

October 15, 2010


Of the many pseudoscientific institutions responsible for pushing the pseudoscientific fraud of Man Made Global Warming in recent years, few have been quite so assiduous in promulgating the great lie as our own Royal Society. (H/T John O’Sullivan at Suite 101)

“Pseudoscientific” may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Sir Joseph Banks and leading palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century and the first bit of this one, it managed to urinate three centuries’ worth of credibility and rigour up against the wall by deciding to abandon all objectivity and act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby.

The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution’s history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change.

This 2005 propaganda exercise rode a coach and horses through the Royal Society’s traditions of non-partisanship. As Nigel Calder has pointed out, for two centuries the following advertisement was printed in its house journal Philosophical Transactions:

… it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always
adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject,
either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.

But perhaps more importantly it was hopelessly inaccurate, which is why, following a rebellion by some of its members, the Royal Society last month issued a revised guide to Climate Change.

However, this one is apparently wrong too. According to German chemist Dr Klaus Kaiser, the new document grossly exaggerates the amount of time the deadly, devil gas they call CARBON DIOXIDE (mwa ha ha ha!) spends in the atmosphere.

Here’s what the Royal Society claims:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”

But Dr Kaiser says this is rubbish, for reasons he explains at length in Canada Free Press.

It is also obvious then that the statement by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to levels at preindustrial times upon a (theoretical) complete and sudden cessation of all manmade CO2 release to the atmosphere cannot be true. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years? Furthermore, there are several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be between 5 and 10 years. A half life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

He has the support of Swedish maths professor Claes Johnson, who has written scathingly before of what he calls the “Royal Society in Free Fall”.

This is not science which has been shown to be correct, but populistic science selling “truths” which serve a certain political agenda.

The Royal Society’s next president will be the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. He has got his work cut out, I’d say.

Related posts:

  1. The Royal Society: too little, too late
  2. Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

2 thoughts on “Royal Society: doh!”

  1. Ian says:16th October 2010 at 10:58 amJames Old Boy, I think the greatest pseudoscientific scandal of recent history isn’t the great global warming scam, but the holocaust. The cost to us all in general, and to many countries and corporations and banks in particular, ever since has been in the trillions. The global warming scam will run it a close second though.
  2. JazzRoc says:22nd October 2010 at 4:52 pmThe most telling argument for global warming is EVIDENCE like the following:
    This is something you may try for yourself.
    You’ll see the immediate and measure-for-measure warming taking place in the bottle containing MORE carbon dioxide. This is a reaction which takes place across the Universe: shine EM radiation through carbon dioxide gas, and it will ABSORB it and RE-EMIT it.
    It may be argued that producing more CO2 will increase its natural absorption (it does) but that doesn’t mean that the heating effect is REDUCED; only that the rate of heating is reduced.
    So we are uncovering fossil carbon and burning it, increasing its proportion of the atmosphere day-by-day, having TRIPLED it in historical times.
    When you remove natural cycles from the Earth’s temperature history, lo-and-behold, you get an exact MATCH in the last three centuries to Man’s fossil fuel use and the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide: the “hockeystick”.
    Now it seems to me that THAT is EVIDENCE of ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, and no amount of arguing (the power of big bucks, the “corruption” of scientists, etc., etc.) makes the slightest difference to the TRUTH: the Earth is getting hotter because we are burning fossil fuels.
    Faced with the SURE knowledge that there are SERIOUS TIPPING POINTS like POLAR ALBEDO and temperature-released methane from the tundras and ocean clathrates, the posture AGAINST man-made global warming seems downright irresponsible to me.
    What’s the motivation behind the denial of this evidence? What can POSSIBLY make one take a stand AGAINST reason and logic?