Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot | James Delingpole

April 19, 2010

You may have noticed the strong stench of troll lurking below this blog of late. (Hat tip Barry Woods)

And here’s the reason:

Sceptic alerts
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.

To sign up, enter your e-mail address in the box below:

You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles. We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy. You can contribute to as little or as many articles as you like, just dive in.

It comes from an organisation called the Campaign Against Climate Change. Its honorary president is George Monbiot; its vice-presidents are three politicians – self-hating public school socialist Michael Meacher; Norman Baker (who he?); overpromoted Green MEP Caroline Lucas; and its advisers include the usual crazed rag-bag of yoghurt weaving, Atomkraft-Nein-Danke loons.

Apparently the reason we sceptics and evil deniers are doing so well at the moment is because of all the massive funding we receive from Big Oil.

It has recently been revealed that Koch Industries, a little-known, privately owned US oil company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million. Closer to home, it has been suggested that Shell’s funding of an exhibition at the Science Museum may be linked to the museum stepping back from its earlier strong stance on climate change.

Also, we’re psychologically damaged and love making stuff up:

Those who actively promote climate scepticism are well networked, and have been termed ‘deniers’ rather than sceptics because many show scant regard for the facts, while seizing avidly on any error in the work of climate scientists.

Luckily, the Warmists have thought up a brilliant counter to our wicked plan to fill the world with lies and carbon emissions. They’re going to, get this, lurk at the bottom of our blogs and make snarky remarks and post links to RealClimate proving that we’re completely wrong. Hurrah! Thus, through the mighty power of the blogosphere will the world be saved.

Oh, and guess who the Warmist trolls (UK branch, anyway) think the most evil denier of all is?

Modesty forbids me from naming him. But here’s a clue from the home of impotent, sphincter-bursting libtard rage that is Left Foot Forward, in yet another piece on how to deal with Climate Sceptics:

For now, though, let me close with a challenge for progressive readers: one of the study’s more obvious conclusions was how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites. This is unsurprising for anyone who has ever trawled through comments left behind after any climate change article. By the time you read this, there will doubtless be sceptical comments posted beneath this blog, too.

So here’s what I’d like you to do:

• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts;

• You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science;

• Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or

• Refer to the discussions at RealClimate and Climate Safety.

Oh, and remember to check out James Delingpole’s column at the Telegraph. If any of it makes you angry, you might like to let him know. Did I say be polite? Scratch that.

Pip! Pip! Off now to eat some foie gras stuffed with truffles – courtesy of Big Koch – while I dream up a few more climate lies.

Related posts:

  1. Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!
  2. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  3. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  4. Monbiot: an apology

7 thoughts on “Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot”

  1. John of Kent says:19th April 2010 at 10:36 amWho would that be then?? It wasn’t me honest! ;-(
  2. Gus Walters says:19th April 2010 at 10:44 am”company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million.”
    How sad it is that not even a single coin has made it’s way to this denier. I feel slighted.
    Monbiot, who you are is discoverable. But what you are is unexplainable. James, you should be proud that you are an itch he cannot scratch.
  3. Sean says:19th April 2010 at 3:38 pmJamey boy, could you pass on my details to Exxon and ask them to make the check out to cash. 10 grand should cover it. As soon as it clears I will slag off those wanker warmers with wry wit and razor sharp sarcasm guaranteed to piss them off no end. I’ll deny anything for money even claiming that Pamela Anderson’s boobs are real and those that say they’re not are being paid by Esso.

    A good suggestion for the warmers would be to stop exhaling, as suggested by Al Gore in his Zero emissions statement. It would also solve the population problem these same people are so concerned about and get rid of quite a few of those anoraks that call themselves Greenies.

  4. Simon D says:19th April 2010 at 8:28 pmJames, you’re frequently incorrectly defining troll as someone who disagrees with you or points out your mistakes. It more accurately describes someone who posts inflammatory comments to get a rise out of others. You could well be described as a professional troll.

    While I’m here… Could you let me know why, in your previous post about Germans turning against climate change, you quoted the results from a poll question of dubious value while ignoring a question in the same poll that contradicted your argument? Did you not read the article your entire post was based on or did you deliberate mislead your readers?

  5. James W says:21st April 2010 at 5:27 am‘Climate Change’ is just another ‘issue’, ‘ruse’, ‘project’ call it what you will designed to help spread the ‘progressive’ thinking of the left into mainstream conscious and to provide ‘progressives’ with jobs.


    > Professional politicians (Westminster, Brussels, Strasbourg, New York)

    > Amateur politicians (quangocrats, councillors, activists, etc.)

    > Journalists

    > Academics including medicine

    > Health & Safety knobjockeys

    > BBC

    > ‘Big Charity’

    Now think…………..WTF do they produce? Answer? Judgemental left wing guff, rules, regulations and other ways to stop people getting on with their lives in peace, quiet and without being told what not to do and how to do it.

    Unfortunately, we had better get used to it – the left has changed its tactics, and dispensed with the immediacy of ‘shock and squawk’, they are now looking at imposing wishy washy state control and universal taxation by stealth.

    The global financial crisis was their 911………perfect opportunity to accuse anyone generating wealth of greed and anti-social selfishness, whilst beatifying any left wing idea as quite simply ‘the right thing to do’.

    They have claimed a monopoly on virtue – and decried the right as evil.

    Help. I despair.

  6. Russell Cavanagh says:22nd April 2010 at 8:12 amHave you read about the effort to get US media to agree on and dominate climate change talking points? See
  7. Nial says:29th November 2010 at 12:56 pm“Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts”

    Ho ho ho, “and use facts”.

    They won’t be arguing very long.


Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Liked it? Take a second to support James on Patreon!