Moonbat + Amazongate = Prize Pillock

Shrill buffoonery

spat-acular

With thanks to Josh @ www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

There’s only one thing more satisfying than being right. That’s when a shrill buffoon you utterly despise dedicates an entire column in a newspaper you loathe to accusing you of being wrong, working himself up into an almost masturbatory lather of slobbering indignation, macheting himself to ever greater heights of ecstatic fervour like some Shi’ite penitent during Ashura, giggling at his jokes, crowing at his own cleverness, earning all sorts of smarmy plaudits from his coterie of sorry eco-fascist brown-nosers – and it turns out, after all that, you’re still entirely right and the buffoon – let’s call him Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever.

I love you George Moonbat, no really I do. You’ve just made my weekend.

Don’t think George loves me, though. There’s a clue in this par here:

In the Telegraph, James Delingpole, who seldom misses an opportunity to make an idiot of himself, announced that these revelations meant:

“AGW [anthropogenic global warming] theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC.”In reality, as we will see, it’s Delingpole’s beliefs on climate change that the story has reduced to toast.

Anyway, let me explain what this is all about. Someone complained to the Press Complaints Commission about a story Jonathan Leake had written in the Sunday Times about Amazongate. The story concerned yet another piece of dodgy science from that supposed gold standard of climate expertise – the IPCC – which had quoted some statistics about the Amazon’s sensitivity to climate change which were a) inaccurate b) not peer-reviewed c) had been taken from a World Wildlife Fund press release. For some bizarre reason, the Sunday Times decided not to stand up to the Press Complaints Commission – despite the fact that the substance of the story was entirely correct. This, in turn, has given greenies like Monbiot an excuse to prance up and down like Muffin the Mule on angel dust under the insane delusion that this somehow demolishes the entire sceptics’ case against AGW. Which, it doesn’t.

Really, that’s it. If you’re interested in the (mildly dull) details Richard North tells the full story here.

The reason I can’t be bothered to repeat them myself is that I wrote up all these nuances back in January here and here. In the second story, I explain how the great North got his original story slightly wrong but how on closer examination the story turned out to have been even more damning to the IPCC’s credibility than we’d previously suspected. Monbiot clearly missed this subtlety, tee hee. Otherwise he wouldn’t be looking such a prize pillock now.

Related posts:

  1. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  2. Pen Hadow: Arctic Pillock – the comedy saga continues
  3. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  4. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

4 thoughts on “Moonbat + Amazongate = Prize Pillock”

  1. John of Kent says:29th June 2010 at 7:57 amYes, it does turn out that there are no real basis in peer reviewed papers for the claims of the IPCC over the Amazon’s alleged sensitivity to warming. Besides which, this is all besides the point as mankind has no significant influence over the weather or climate, at all!!See the excellent Watts Up With that site for more information on the Amazongate debacle.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/booker-north-and-willis-on-the-ipcc-amazongate-affair/

    and this more detailled article that looks at the actual data.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

    This shows the rainfall has not changed (other than noise in the data) over the last 100 years, in fact the past decade shows higher than average rainfall. So much for alleged warming threatening the Amazon by drought!

  2. Pete Hayes says:2nd July 2010 at 7:37 amNow Richard North has gone through 2 versions of the study and still found no 30/40% will the “Shrill Buffoon” be apologizing to Dr North, Mr Booker and yourself James?Trust me, I will not hold my breath but I bet he goes extremely quite on the subject.

    I am actually glad the Times did cowardly retract the article….as you said, “Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever” LMAO

  3. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:33 pmYes, it does turn out that there are no real basis in peer reviewed papers for the claims of the IPCC over the Amazon’s alleged sensitivity to warming. Besides which, this is all besides the point as mankind has no significant influence over the weather or climate, at all!!See the excellent Watts Up With that site for more information on the Amazongate debacle.

    h t t p://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/booker-north-and-willis-on-the-ipcc-amazongate-affair/

    and this more detailled article that looks at the actual data.

    h t t p ://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

    This shows the rainfall has not changed (other than noise in the data) over the last 100 years, in fact the past decade shows higher than average rainfall. So much for alleged warming threatening the Amazon by drought!

  4. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:33 pmremove the spaces between the h the t the t and the p. I had to do that to get the link passed the automatic moderator.

Comments are closed.

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