Twitter wars: another proxy battleground for the future of Western civilisation | James Delingpole

August 4, 2013

Twitter, yesterday

So I’d just got back from doing a shop at Aldi (*) last night when I noticed that in my absence I’d been mentioned in 120 new tweets. “Ulp!” I thought. “What have I gone and done now?” In Twitterland, you see, being mentioned in lots of tweets is usually a sign you’ve been naughty.

(* Aldi’s aged sirloin Aberdeen Angus steak is unsurpassed)

Anyway, it turned out that I had enraged the usual Twitter suspects. Some had chosen to take umbrage over a link I’d put up to another superb piece by Russell Taylor in which he had an entirely justified dig at the ghastly Co Op and its war on lads’ mags; others were rising to the defence of publicity-seeking Labour MP Stella Creasy who can’t seem quite to make up her mind whether she is a delicate wallflower in need of protective regulation or a feisty, fearless interweb provocatrice. The general verdict was that I was immature, mentally ill, devoid of love, psychologically damaged, inadequate and DEFINITELY NOT FUNNY, let alone worthy of a voice in the national debate.

So, as you do, I had a glance at the self-descriptions of my self-appointed Twitter jury and here are some examples of what I found:

“Labour party activist”; “Middle-aged old style socialist”; “leftie”; “Guardian-reading liberal”; “gig-going lefty”; “Socialist Labour party”; “Local government worker and political activist”; “Labour cllr (Withington)”; “@owenjones84.”

Can any of you notice what they have in common? Yes. That’s right. These are the kind of people who, if I wrote a 10,000 word panegyric on the beauty and wisdom of their mothers, would focus solely on my abject failure in paragraph 57 to include an exclamation mark after “and her crochet skills are fantastic too…” The kind of chippy malcontents, indeed, who are quite heftily over-represented in the comments section below this blog, busily pointing out stuff like how the spell of nice weather we’ve had recently makes a total mockery of my evil, Big-Oil funded climate change scepticism, or noting that because I suffer depression I am mentally unstable, or just spitting bile over the fact that they’ve got worthless degrees in climate “science” from the “University” of East Anglia and all that lovely work they had as advisers in the renewables sector seems to have dried up rather of late. Not normal people in other words. Not neutral voices who’ve thoughtfully weighed up the pros and cons before chipping in their tuppenny hapenny’s worth. But shrill, angry, politically motivated, logic-proof, blinkered, standard issue greeny-lefty trolls.

Why am I telling you this? Because many of you, I know, consider that the goings-on at Twitter this week are beneath your lofty attention. Of course I understand why you think this: Twitter is indeed a bare-knuckle bear pit of a witch hunt frenzy nightmare of bile, invective and round, unvarnished evil. (Though it does have its plus sides too, or I wouldn’t waste so much time there). But what some of you appear to be unaware of is its significance in the broader culture wars.

In these culture wars this week’s Twitter debate is Leveson is Toby Young’s free school is Drummer Lee Rigby and “Islamophobia” is climate change is Christopher Snowdon’s “fake charities” is Piers Morgan and gun control is Trayvon Martin. Which is to say that every one of these issues serves as a proxy battleground for a much broader, and much more important conflict which is raging around the world right now and on whose outcome the future of our fragile civilisation depends.

What this war has very, very little to do with is whether nasty Mr Murdoch’s wicked henchmen caused Milly Dowler’s phone messages to be erased or about whether that idiot’s undeniably stupid, offensive and wrongheaded rape threat to Stella Creasy was any more sincere than Paul Chambers’s tweet “threat” to blow up Robin Hood airport. You’d never guess this from the way these stories have been gleefully spun by the leftist media – the BBC and the Guardian especially – but it just doesn’t, it really doesn’t.

What all these disparate issues are really about is the things they’re always really about: the bitter, ongoing struggle between those on the one hand who cleave ardently to the statist religion of equality, diversity and sustainability in which society’s “best interests” are decided by an “enlightened” elite of bureaucrats, technocrats, petty officials, social workers, Local Agenda 21 groupuscules, administrators, UN and EU apparatchiks, Guardian editorial-writers, grandstanding politicians and members of the BBC Trust. And on the other, those of us who have sufficient faith in human nature to take the view that – barring the odd safety net here and the occasional piece of protective legislation there – the best route to creating a more fruitful, enjoyable, richer and, yes, fairer world is for us all, pretty much, to be left to live our lives the way we want to live them, unencumbered by confiscatory taxes, Nannyish government edicts and pettifogging regulation which seeks to micromanage every last detail of our daily existence from how many different coloured bags we put our rubbish in to the degree to which we’re permitted to be rude towards our enemies on Twitter.

I know which side I’m on. This columnist here seems to be equally sure which side she’s on. You can all decide for yourselves where you belong on this ideological battleground. But don’t kid yourself that this is a war where you can just sit on the sidelines or where there’s a “reasonable middle ground”. Ultimately, it’s about liberty v tyranny; about freedom of speech v creeping state control; free market capitalism v anti-growth collectivism; personal responsibility v suckling on the teat of the state; optimism v pessimism.

You choose.

Related posts:

  1. Twitter: ‘Tweet’ went the birdy, and we did
  2. How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within
  3. I have just seen the Conservatives’ future. Unfortunately, it’s in New Zealand.
  4. The genius of Fenbeagle: Dan Daringpole – Pilot of the Future

 

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

What really happened on BBC Any Questions | James Delingpole

June 10, 2013

One of last night’s protestors.

I did very much enjoy recording Any Questions in the belly of the beast – aka Eco Loon Central, aka the Centre for Alternative Technology in Machynlleth – this week. But I’m not sure it necessarily had the makings of brilliant radio.

The big problem with radio – as opposed to TV – is that if things start kicking off in the recording venue (as they very much did with last night’s unusually lively audience of yoghurt-weaving yurt-dwellers) there are no cameras to relay what’s going on to the outside world. If you were listening last night – or if you listened to today’s repeat – all you’ll have heard is some background protestations from the audience and the sound of Jonathan Dimbleby trying to keep order.

I think the technical term for what the BBC did with this programme was “trolling.” Step one: arrange to record your panel show in ground zero of green lunacy. Step two: invite one of Britain’s most infamous climate sceptics and one of Britain’s most outspokenly anti-wind-farm, pro-fracking MPs (Owen Paterson – who was partly responsible for effecting the government’s recent policy shift making it easier for groups to oppose wind farms). Step three: light touch-paper and run.

That noise you’ll have heard in the background was partly all the mung-bean-munchers in the audience jeering and hissing me when I expressed scepticism about climate change; but mainly – the real rumpus at the end – was when a small group of anti-badger-cull protestors in the front row tried to hijack the show by loudly shouting insults at Owen Paterson. Annoyingly this was at the very moment when it was my turn to speak about wind farms and I ended up having to shout into my mic so as to avoid being drowned out by the yelling badger huggers.

Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot, as I think Paterson did too. We didn’t feel threatened, the volunteers from the Alternative Technology Centre were all very sweet and welcoming, and of course it’s always tremendous fun getting to tell a bunch of eco loons to their face that they’re a bunch of eco loons – and have it broadcast all over the country.

But I fear that the real – and thoroughly undeserved – losers from all this were the thousands of people all over mid-Wales who are struggling desperately to stop their matchlessly beautiful landscape being destroyed by wind turbines and pylons. Taking the train to Machynlleth on Friday I looked out of the window slack-jawed at the magnificence of mid-Wales’s The-Shire-like hill country which has been rendered more lushly green than perhaps at any time in recent history thanks to the atmospheric abundance of glorious CO2. And the question I kept asking myself is: “How could anyone who really cares about our natural heritage possibly want to destroy this with wind turbines?”

Under current government plans, 800 turbines – some over 400 feet tall – are to be built in mid-Wales, with another 100 miles worth of pylons to be built across Montgomeryshire and into Shropshire in order to connect their expensive, intermittent, unreliable electricity with the national grid. This is going to cost a minimum of £2 billion. Yet, for about one fifth of that cost you can build a gas fired power station capable of producing nearly three times as much power – without blighting the countryside for miles around and without draining the pockets of the poor, put-upon energy user with unnecessary green tariffs.

These people deserve better than to have the cause dearest to their hearts trivialised in the way it was on BBC Any Questions. Given a bit more space and given a more balanced audience, I could have made a much more persuasive case for them. Instead, I was forced to bellow my point, slogan-like, into the mic in the last few seconds before the show closed while the badger protestors were barracking Paterson. Exciting for some us, perhaps, but not really fair on the people who really matter: the thousands of victims of the unconscionable wind energy scam still being forced on them by our Coalition government, the Welsh Assembly and Alex Salmond.

UPDATE: I’ve written some further thoughts on this which I think a few of you might enjoy. There’s a particularly delicious section on one of our house trolls.

Related posts:

  1. Any Questions? Yeah. Why is British broadcasting so incorrigibly liberal-left?
  2. Any Questions
  3. Only the Tea Party can save us now
  4. Only a totalitarian New World Order can save us now says Naomi Klein

 

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

‘Trougher’ Yeo: we mustn’t laugh… | James Delingpole

June 10, 2013

Tim “Trougher” Yeo MP has been caught with his trousers down.

Some of you, I know, are expecting me to gloat. And I must agree that on the face of it it does look pretty shoddy.

Tim Yeo, after all, is the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. Its job is to “examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its associated public bodies.” Therefore, clearly, it would be an issue of grave concern if an MP with such an influential regulatory role were found to be abusing his power by offering to grant special behind-the-scenes favours to green vested interest in return for wodges of cash.

Yet this, it would seem on first glance, is what Yeo has been caught doing on camera by a newspaper sting operation.

“The reporters approached Yeo posing as representatives of a solar energy company offering to hire him as a paid advocate to push for new laws to boost its business for a fee of £7,000 a day. He told them he could commit to at least one day a month, despite the fact that he already held four private jobs and was in negotiations to take a further two. Setting out what he could offer, the MP said: “If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I can use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections.” Asked if that extended to government figures, Yeo replied: “Yes.” The House of Commons code of conduct forbids members from acting as paid advocates, including by lobbying ministers. Yeo also said he could help them by guiding them on submitting evidence to his own committee, which he described as “a good way of getting your stuff on the map”.”

It’s true that this is not the first time Yeo’s green business activities have come to the attention of this blog.

There’s Tim Yeo: No Headline Can Do Him Justice.

and Trougher Yeo recants on Global Warming

and Just Why Is Tory MP Tim Yeo So Passionate About Green Issues

and Tim Yeo: like a cross between Ebola and Chris Huhne

and Lilley Sticks It To Trougher Yeo

In some of these blogposts it may gently have been hinted, with this column’s characteristic delicacy and tact, that there may be a degree of conflict of interest between the £200,000 plus per annum Yeo snaffles from his green businesses (on top of his MP’s salary) and his fierce advocacy in parliament and behind the scenes of the kind of environmental regulatory measures without which this kind of business would be unlikely to survive commercially.

But not in this one. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this and I realise that there’s no way any half-decent human being could do what Tim Yeo has been accused of doing and live with the shame. If the allegations against him were really true, he would have retired to his office with his bottle of whisky and his old service pistol months ago in order to do the right thing.

The other day Patrick Mercer MP got himself into deep doo-doo for what I genuinely consider a venial slip of no consequence to anyone. It really doesn’t matter one jot that he was prepared to take a few thousand quid from the Fijian government to lobby on its behalf, because the difference, if any, it would have made to UK policy would have been negligible and it wouldn’t have cost the taxpayer a penny. Far sadder to my mind was what the story tells us about the miserable lot of a backbench MP: if we’re really to get the calibre of parliamentary representatives we deserve then we’re going to have to pay them properly. Otherwise, they’re going to go on having to scrabble around having to earn extra on the side, instead of sticking to what they should be doing which is acting in the interests of the country and protecting us from crap regulation.

What Tim Yeo has been accused of doing is of a different order of putrescent disgustingness entirely. It’s not that he was apparently prepared to trouser £7,000 for using his influence per se that’s the key issue, it seems to me. Rather, it’s that Yeo appears on the surface to be one of those MPs most consistently responsible for using his power and influence to prop up one of the most expensive, corrupt and dishonest scams in history.

The great Climate Change hoax has cost the UK not just the odd thousand here and there. It has cost it billions. Thousands of old people have been condemned to miserable deaths in fuel poverty; good businesses have been crippled by layers of environmental regulation; bad businesses have gorged themselves on free money they simply don’t deserve by sucking on the teat of the subsidised renewables sector; property rights have been confiscated, views ruined, sleep disturbed, people’s health damage, birds and bats chopped to pieces by wind turbines; our economic recovery has been held back by idiot green taxes and the idiot ongoing attempt by DECC and its allies to stop us exploiting our abundant shale gas reserves.

And where has alleged Tory MP Tim Yeo MP been in all this? Has been carefully scrutinising the scientific evidence for this alleged climate change threat? Has been overseeing DECC’s policies to be absolutely damn sure they’re not doing more harm than good?

Er, not exactly, no. Instead, he’s been doing everything in his power to keep the green gravy train going – long after the evidence to justify its existence has lost all credibility – in order, it would seem on the first casual glance, to benefit from it financially.

If this is true, as I say, it really ought to be whisky and service pistol time.

That’s why I am quite sure there must be another explanation. I think what is far more likely is this:

Yes, the secret camera footage is real all right. But the bloated, pasty-faced trougher in the expensive shirt and jacket prostituting his services at a Chinese restaurant just can’t be Tim Yeo. I’d say it’s a spookily convincing doppelganger, genetically engineered by the Koch Brothers – or possibly Exxon – in order to make the global warming industry look corrupt and evil and dishonest and vile.

Poor Tim Yeo. My thoughts go out to him at this difficult time – as I hope yours do too.

Related posts:

  1. Lilley sticks it to ‘Trougher’ Yeo
  2. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  3. We need to talk about wind farms…
  4. CCX lay offs: You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh…

 

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

‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming | James Delingpole

May 30, 2013

 

Yeo: “Even though I’m wrong I’m totally right”.

So even Tim “Trougher” Yeo admits he was wrong about climate change. (Well done young Matthew Holehouse for screwing this admission out of him.)

Here’s what he said in 2009:

“The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”

And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now:

“Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”

We’re going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks and months: “the even though I’ve been proved completely wrong, I was right all along really” non-apologetic retraction from all those former full-time climate alarmists – eg the Met Office; Oxford’s Professor Myles Allen; even certain of my Telegraph blogging colleagues – who are now trying to escape from the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam while trying to salvage as much professional dignity as they can muster.

Notice that weasel phrase “I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming…” It’s the sort of technique you might learn in an advanced NLP class as a way of pulling wool over the eyes of the unwary. What the phrase implies is that there has been a long-running debate as to whether “climate is changing”, that Yeo has always been on the right side of it and that now he has been vindicated. Truly this a slimy trick worthy of the man they sometimes call “Trougher” and sometimes “Ebola”. As we all know here, there has never been a debate about whether the “climate is changing”. Not even Mr Thick the Thickest person on the planet; not even Mr Fossil Fuel, the most lavishly Big-Oil-funded denialist denialista; not a single person anywhere on earth ever in our lifetime has ever suggested that climate doesn’t change. Indeed, that has been the whole point that those of us on the right (ie my) side of the argument have been making all along. Climate change is a normal, natural and perpetual process which occurs, and has always occurred, with sublime indifference to man’s puny input.

Still, it’s good to see Yeo taking at least the first tentative step on the path to redemption. Admitting you were totally wrong about something, that you’ve been made to look an utterly despicable, greedy fool, that even the Conservatives in your constituency hate you, that no one trusts you as far as they can spit, that you’ve done immeasurable damage to your country’s landscape and economy with the abysmally counterproductive environmental policies you not only helped promote but from which you may have benefited financially: these are things no man would ever wish to admit to himself.

But it’s OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP’s salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you’d be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you’d been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you’d produced a DVD called “Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile”: you couldn’t, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?

Well, Trougher, me old mucker, I’m afraid the same rules apply with your green business interests. Here’s the thing: that industry you’ve profited from simply WOULD NOT EXIST had it not been for that toxic combination of junk science and hysterical fearmongering to which you have made such a vocal contribution.

I know quarter of a million quid is small beer next to the profits being raked in by your mates in the renewables industry. But for some people out there it would make a real difference, especially the victims of the wind industry which the Committee for Climate Change (Prop: Tim Yeo) has done so much to encourage.

£50 buys someone a decent night’s sleep in a B & B away from the insomnia-inducing low frequency noise of a wind farm

£500 buys a sporting rifle which – not that I’m recommending such illegal behaviour, heaven forfend! – might be used to blast away at the nacelle of the nearest wind turbine

£30,000 pays for a QC to represent a local community at the wind farm planning appeal to which, of course, by rights they should never have had to be subjected. After all, it’s not as though the planning committee of their district council didn’t already turn down this application to plonk an industrial turbine in the middle of their cherished beauty spot on two occasions, once by 11 to 1 and second time by 11 to 0. But hey, that’s the situation we’ve got at the moment with Dave’s Greenest Government Ever: still committed to building more of the turbines which no one save scrounging landowners and principle-free renewable energy companies actually wants….

£50,000 pays for the subsequent judicial review.

£250,000 buys a bespoke resignation speech, written by top author James Delingpole, for when you finally realise that being a decent Tory MP doesn’t fit comfortably within your skillset and that there are careers more closely aligned to your moral outlook. I’m thinking, maybe rare-earth mineral mining in China. Growth industry. Really green!

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  2. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  3. Not even God believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming any more, Archbishop
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

 

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

‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists | James Delingpole

April 24, 2013

Now that global warming is completely unravelling, I want to elaborate on a point I made a few blogposts back about the role of humanities graduates in this great debate.

On the face of it, their record isn’t good. Some of the most influential promulgators of climate nonsense have been arts graduates – among them Bryony Worthington (the FoE activist turned peer responsible for the Climate Change Act), the BBC’s Roger Harrabin and a fair few of the Guardian’s 2,800-strong Environment Department. I think future historians – looking back on this period of mass hysteria in which so many people were persuaded by and so much expensive, damaging policy was based on the largest confection of lies in junk science history – could put together a reasonably persuasive thesis that it was mainly the fault of scientist-manque arts graduates too easily impressed by men in white lab coats.

Against that, though, you’d have to set people like me and the Booker. Neither of us – as the Warmists like endlessly to remind us and taunt us – has a science degree; yet we’ve dedicated most of the latter part of our careers towards exposing the scam. And we’ve done so with confidence not because we’re scientists but, rather, precisely because we’re not scientists. I don’t want to upset the many scientists here present who make such fascinating and enlightening contributions to this blog, for which I am always (well unless they’re trolls from the UEA….) extremely grateful. But as I tried to explain the other day in my brief spat with Wattsy, this debate isn’t mainly about “the science” and it never was mainly about “the science.”

This is something most of my journalistic contemporaries – such the one whose irksome private correspondence I quoted in the first version of this blog before someone persuaded me this was dishonourable and that I should take it down – have failed to understand. Even now, I think, in the journalistic mainstream, the view remains that “climate change” is a scientific debate about man’s influence on global warming. And it so isn’t. What it really is is just another proxy conflict in the culture wars: between those who believe in limited government, low taxation, minimal regulation, personal responsibility, free markets and liberty on the one hand; and on the other those who believe in an ever-enlarging state (perhaps even to the point of One World Government), high tax, more regulation, and rule by an elite of technocrats and “experts” on the other. I argue this, as those of you who have read it will know, in Watermelons.

In his latest column the excellent Lawrence Solomon makes a similar point about scientists versus historians:

Many blame the public’s confusion over global warming on a widespread ignorance of science. A scientific grounding wouldn’t hurt but it also wouldn’t help much – few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialist scientists wield.

The much better explanation for the public’s confusion lies in a widespread ignorance of history, not least by scientists. Any child can understand that the Romans conquered the world when temperatures were warmer than today, that the Dutch invented the ice skates during the Little Ice Age five hundred years ago, and that melting glaciers off Newfoundland a century ago produced the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

He’s dead right. We all have our part to play in the debate, humanities and science graduates alike. Our gravest mistake in this particular one, I think, has been to put far too much faith in scientists as arbiters of ultimate truth. We have elevated them to the status of priest, almost – as you can hear, for example, in the broadcaster’s reverential tone on the BBC every time he or she invokes the word “scientists”.

One of m’learned commenters (remind me and I’ll H/T you) traces the problem back to CP Snow’s 1959 Two Cultures lecture. Ever since arts graduates – note, eg, its effects on Melvyn Bragg’s career – have thought meanly of themselves for not having studied a proper science degree.

For years, I must say, I felt much the same about my own mere English Literature degree.

But not any more. Climategate and its aftermath changed all that. It’s not a science degree you need to negotiate the complexities of this tottering edifice of propaganda, tortured data, lies, misinformation, political wrangling, rampant greed, corporatist manoeuvring and establishment cover-ups: it’s the mental clarity you develop translating the Battle of Maldon, the powers of endurance you develop from reading the Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, and the critical nous you acquire while trying to understand what the hell Spenser was on about when he wrote the Faerie Queene.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  2. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist
  3. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

10 thoughts on “’Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists”

  1. m brown says:7th June 2013 at 9:38 pmJudging from the number of comments here no one reads this stuff. You are too extreme even for the loonies.
  2. Angus Rose says:15th June 2013 at 9:01 pmWhat promulgators of climate nonsense? Every academy of science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. The causes of climate change are known. The foundations of the supporting science were established back in the 1800s! Read up on Jean Fourier Baptiste (1824), John Tyndall (1859) and Svente Arrhenius (1896)… the list goes on. The scientific support is very broad and the evidence too.

    What is uncertain is the degree and timing of long term temperature projections, currently 1.1 to 6.4 deg C by century end, with a high degree of probability that it will be 3 deg C of warming. The modelling of any highly complex system is going to include simplifications, assumptions and some uncertainty. Ethically, scientific uncertainty is not grounds on which one can disregard the risk of harm to people, nations and ecosystems. It’s ethically reprehensible to only consider one’s own benefit of GHG emissions, when those same emissions place others at risk.

    Governments, non-national governments, organisations, corporations and individuals all have responsibility to reduce the risk of harm of others. Harms are already been experienced by many, with the WHO currently attributing 150,00 annual deaths due to diarrhea, malaria, drought, famine from climate change.

    Mr Delingpole, your disinformation campaign puts many many people at risk. Your arguments of ethics, science and evidence is flawed. If you’re insistent on acting purely in self interest then I would suggest you go back to the drawing board, as the legacy you’re trying to build won’t be worth tuppence when the majority in the UK start believing in the causes of extreme weather rather than your propaganda.

    1. Circuit Ben says:19th June 2013 at 2:20 pmHe’s a Tory, self interest is religion.
  3. M Yass says:19th June 2013 at 5:19 amI see ol’ Jimbo here still peddling his climate denial claptrap. So where’s his big expose? 4 years on and he’s produced nothing. Still, the guy’s got to earn a living.
  4. Circuit Ben says:19th June 2013 at 2:19 pmFor someone who gets his “Information” from oil companies, you’ve got an awfully smug way of denying scientific evidence. How much are they paying you? I thought journalism was supposed to expose corruption.
  5. Cicero says:1st July 2013 at 10:01 pmAmazing Angus that you actually believe the nonsense you have written.
  6. Gordon R says:6th July 2013 at 3:31 amDelingpole, a useful idiot for the fossil fuel lobby.
  7. millymolly says:19th August 2013 at 11:56 pmWhatever, I just can’t believe that ‘modelling’ although superb for many scientific applications, is the real, hard science that shows and predicts (with a high rate of certainty, let alone proof) what is happening climate-wise, or likely to happen.

    There are other factors which environmental or atmospheric scientists just ignore, perhaps because they can’t be modelled or not easily incorporated into the modelling?

    There’s that huge molten nuclear factory throwing x-rays or solar flares or magnetic storms towards us. Not to mention our not yet fully understood solar wind, and the heliosphere.

    There’s our molten inner core which I used to think couldn’t possibly matter until I read that heat from it does affect or at least comes to the surface more often in areas of high geo-thermal activity (I know ….should have thought it through).

    Then there is our axial progression which takes about 26,000 years – not to forget the hole in the ozone layer (or has it gone away) as well as what is presently known re gases etc being emitted from live volcanoes.

    After all the above has been incorporated into the modelling, then I think atmospheric scientists’ work should start.

    1. terry99 says:6th October 2013 at 5:32 pmEverything that could possibly warm or cool the atmosphere has been included in the models including the sun ,volcanoes , heat from the earths core, aerosols , soot, changes in earths orbit, water vapour, movements of the oceans and atmosphere,El Nino, agriculture, cattle,forestry, natural and manmade co2 etc . The suns output has been studied in great detail. The computer models output for past temperatures (“backward prediction”) matches accurately the actual measured temp record. This improves confidence in its ability to predict future temps.. The models do not PROVE agw but is one line of evidence among many that human produced co2 is causing warming .
  8. Terry 99 says:6th October 2013 at 4:35 pmWhen Mr Delingpole was asked by Paul Nurse if he would trust his own ” medical research” rather the scientific consenus of the medical team operating on him in a heart operation scenario he stumbled and fumbled ,could not answer and changed the subject. His understanding of the scientific method of enquiry is childish. Science and technology advances by the accumulation of knowledge from repeated experiments and theoretical debate leading to scientific CONSENSUS . The mobile phone was not invented by a brilliant journalist waking up one morning with a clever idea but on the accumulated knowledge of centuries of experiment (Newton,Faraday,Maxwell etc). Has mr Delingpole ever heard of these people ? What an Igoramus!!

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Vote Delingpole! Vote often! | James Delingpole

March 1, 2013

Masterpiece by Fenbeagle

Blimey, I’m up for a prize – my first ever Bloggie award nomination. I’d be so pleased if I won because, unlike most journalistic awards, the Bloggies aren’t decided by a cabal of pinkos and unimaginative, career-safe lametards from the decaying, dead-tree establishment but by the only people who really matter – you the readers.

See that subtle, sucking-up thing I did there? But I also happen to mean it. Without your vote I don’t win a prize. Without your readership and support I’d just be another of those desperate saddoes like the trolls who haunt this blog in order to try to leech off some traffic for their own pitifully dull, billy-no-mates online musings.

So that’s something else to consider: when you vote for me, you’re not merely voting for the cause of all that is righteous and true – but you’re also doing the equivalent of taking away a troll’s online donkey porn account: and you know how miserable and bereft that would make them feel, right?

The only sad aspect of this is that I’m up against my good friends at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose superb reports and daily bulletins are the source of half my best material. We serve very different functions, I think, in the great climate wars: they are mature, solid, measured, weighty, authoritative. And I’m, well….. Anyway, it’s a great honour to be in the same category as them and I wish them the best of luck.

Whatever happens, though, we’re all winners in a way because, as Anthony Watts notes at Watts Up With That?, there has never been a year in which quite so many climate sceptical blogs have been in the running. Watts Up With That? is up for Best Science or Technology Blog (in a first class line up with Climate Audit, JoNova, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Skeptical Science) and for Weblog of the Year (Go, Anthony!); Australian Climate Madness is in the running for Best Australian or New Zealand Blog; Small Dead Animals is in the running for Best Canadian Blog;  then you’ve got me and the GWPF in the running for the Best Blog About Politics (in a strong field which includes the superb, incisive American Thinker; the on-the-money Politico; and, er, Occupy).

May the best man win, so long as it’s me!

Related posts:

  1. Don’t Vote For Hannan’s crappy blog
  2. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)
  3. Seven types of troll: a spotter’s guide
  4. Farewell, Knights of Delingpole – and thank you, trolls

 

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

No, David Attenborough: Africa hasn’t warmed by 3.5 degrees C in two decades | James Delingpole

February 12, 2013

Attenborough: nice, well-travelled, but doesn’t know squat about climate change

It’s not often one looks to the Guardian’s environment pages for an incisive and thorough critique of green propagandising. But hats off – really – to Leo Hickman for this ruthless deconstruction of an erroneous claim made by David Attenborough on his latest BBC nature documentary that in the last twenty years Africa has warmed by 3.5 degrees C.

3.5 degrees C in two decades? That would indeed be a remarkable temperature rise in anybody’s money. (Remember, since 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C – and we’re supposed to find that worrying and significant). Which is why, you might have thought, the BBC would have spotted so obvious an error and removed it before the programme went out.

To his credit, this troubled Leo Hickman, too.

I’d never heard this arresting claim before. If that rate of temperature rise continued over, say, a century, then those parts of Africa would see a deathly rise of 17.5C?! Could that claim really be true?

So began his wild goose chase to track down the source of the BBC’s factoid. As you’ll see from his superb piece he never got a terribly satisfactory answer.

I was told that it came from a report published in 2006 by the “Working Group on Climate Change”. The full title of the report was “Africa – Up in Smoke 2: The second report on Africa and global warming from the Working Group on Climate Change and Development” and it was “written and compiled” by Oxfam and the New Economics Foundation, with the support of a wide range of environmental and development NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, Cafod and the Institute of Development Studies.

This, in turn, takes him to a report produced by Christian Aid; and thence to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – which has a stab at citing a “peer-reviewed” article in Nature, which doesn’t support the claim made in the programme either.

What’s rather touching about this is that Hickman is so surprised. Those of us who follow Donna Laframboise’s research, for example, will have long been wearily familiar with the extent to which the IPCC’s supposedly authoritative reports depend on “grey literature” – ie propaganda – produced by activists at organisations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Cafod, etc.

Hickman writes:

Personally, I find it bizarre – and frustrating – that an otherwise exemplary series, which took years to film, has been tainted – in my mind, at least – by such a sloppy piece of research. Why rely primarily on a seven-year-old report published an NGO? Why not just directly ask climatologists who would have the latest available data to hand? And how did the BBC’s researchers even come across such an obscure fact? You get the sense they simply Googled “Africa temperature rise” and went for the first thing they found.

I agree. But it’s so much nicer – and frankly more damning – when instead of my saying it comes from someone on the other side.

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. If class IS a problem for David Cameron he has only himself to blame
  3. Children just aren’t going to know what sun is
  4. Sir David King condemns green scaremongering; Herod condemns child abuse; Osama Bin Laden condemns Islamist terrorism; etc

 

2 thoughts on “No, David Attenborough: Africa hasn’t warmed by 3.5 degrees C in two decades”

  1. Warren T says:12th February 2013 at 2:46 pmhere is my idea for harnessing the strongest winds. too bad climate anything is a giant hoax.

    https://sites.google.com/site/verticalwindfarm/

    too bad i could care less about the world than you over-educated geniuses. make sure you suck extra exhaust for me. pedal to the metal. pollute on!

    the antichrist

  2. tckev says:9th March 2013 at 5:17 pmAs much as admire the sainted Attenborough, his programs would improve no end if his advisers/researchers would stick to facts, or at least keep well away from dubious statistics that only go to show the holy-one in a less than angelic light.

    P.S.
    It appears Warren T is having a bad day. (missing the meds?)

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

Now even Pravda admits the ‘global warming’ jig is up

Tears, bitter polar bear tears

Now the New York Times’s environment desk has closed these bears will die!!!

It’s Death of Little Nell time again in the field of climate “science.” The New York Times – aka Pravda – has announced the closure of its Environment Desk. Rumours that the entire environment team, headed by Andy Revkin, have volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread on the lawn of the new billion dollar home Al Gore bought with the proceeds of his sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern oil interests are as yet unconfirmed. What we do know is that it’s very, very sad and that all over the Arctic baby polar bears are weeping bitter tears of regret.

A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper’s commitment to environmental issues.

“We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter.”

Absolutely. It’s what newspapers always do when they’re committed to a particular field: close down the entire department responsible for covering it.

But it’s still not going to stop some mean-minded cynics sniping and casting aspersions, I’ll bet. Why, some of them will be pointing out the eerie coincidence with the Met Office recent tacit admission that “global warming” isn’t anywhere near what that their dodgy models predicted it would be. And also with NASA’s recent admission that solar variation has a much more significant on terrestrial climate than it has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge. If you didn’t know better, you’d almost get the impression that AGW theory has been so crushingly falsified that hard-headed newspaper executives, even ones at papers as painfully right-on as the New York Times, just aren’t prepared to fund its promulgation any more.

What this means for similarly overstaffed environment desks at other left-wing newspapers one can scarcely begin to imagine. Might it be that we never again read a piece by Leo Hickman entitled “How Do You Tell Your Five Year Old Son That His World Is About To Explode In A Blazing Fireball Because Of Man’s Selfishness And Greed And Refusal To Change His Lifestyle?”

What, and no more Caroline Lucas essays, either on jaunty topics like “My plan for Britain: rationing; cold baths; the banning of cars; and hairshirts for everyone – to be enforced by my new green Mutaween of Environmental Commissars”?

And how would we cope if we never get to read any more Damian Carrington articles on “Official: wind farms are brilliant for bats and rare birds, boosting their numbers by gazillions every year – says new research by RenewablesUK,” and “Global warming: why the latest evidence that it’s going down is sure-fire proof that it’s going up, says Met Office” and “How fracking poisons the water supply, steals food from the poor, encourages racism and causes baby kittens in wicker baskets to die in agony mewling for their mothers”.

And what, for pity’s sake, about poor George Monbiot??????

Related posts:

  1. Is Ian McEwan a global warming denier in denial?
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

22 thoughts on “Now even Pravda admits the ‘global warming’ jig is up”

  1. Dave Morris says:14th January 2013 at 10:55 amDelingpole, you are a liar and right wing propagandist. Nothing you say resembles truth or reflects the reality of the world we live in (and by this i mean planet Earth, not planet Delingploe, which you live on), and are nothing more than il-informed and bigoted opinion. You know nothing about science or indeed any topic you spout your narrow-minded opinion about. You are a charlatan and a fraud and I hope that more people on here tell you how much a buffoon you are, but i suspect I am the only person who will read your vile dishonesty and lies.
    1. PsychoPigeon says:21st January 2013 at 11:53 amYeah, you show him with your personal attacks, you’ve out-scienced him! Meanwhile in non-lala land Al Gore is still trying to make vast sums of money for himself and his buddies in the Oil industry.
      1. Dave Morris says:30th January 2013 at 10:03 amI’m not a scientist. Neither is Delingpole, and neither are you. Pretty much every scientist on the planet has already ‘out-scienced’ him. It’s not up for debate. The argument he presents is akin to religious zealots arguing against evolution, in favour of a divine creator. It’s laughable. Well, it would be if it wasn’t such a catastrophically ignorant and destructive point of view to hold.

        As for your ‘oil industry’ quip, i assume you’re referring to Gore selling his cable TV station to Al Jazeera news.

        Here, watch this:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&wide=1

        Seriously, watch it. All of it. With an open mind, free of prejudice. Then read the list of sources that helped make the film. Then come back on here and say something honest. Something sincere.

        1. Richard M says:31st January 2013 at 12:00 pm“It’s not up for debate. The argument he presents is akin to religious zealots arguing against evolution, in favour of a divine creator. It’s laughable. Well, it would be if it wasn’t such a catastrophically ignorant and destructive point of view to hold.”

          This is the usual self righteous rot that the environmentalist morons trot out.

          Apply some very basic scientific method to the problem. Have you ever heard of ‘signal vs noise’? or ‘Statistical significance?’

          If not, look it up.

          Then consider that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we only have a reliable data-set for less than a hundred years.

          To claim any sort of causation on such a pathetic set of the data is joke science and if presented as a finding of something else, say the genetic likelihood of ginger people being left handed, all the eminent ‘climate scientists’ would laugh it out the door.

          1. Martin Lack says:31st January 2013 at 12:32 pm“This is the usual self righteous rot that the environmentalist morons trot out.” – Presumably, Richard, your definition of ‘environmentalist moron’ includes the majority of members of every reputable scientific body on the planet? Have you ever heard of ‘Dunning-Kruger Effect’ or ‘cognitive dissonance’?

            If not, look it up.

            But, of course, how stupid of me: Rather than accept that the vast majority of scientists have examined all the palaeoclimatic evidence and concluded that the primary cause of ongoing climate disruption (occurring ten times faster than any previous natural change) is a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (rather than a 4% increase in water vapour or a <1% increase in total solar irradiance)… You prefer to invoke a conspiracy theory that requires the vast majority of scientists and/or governments to agree to perpetuate a myth in order to frighten people into accepting ever higher levels of taxation and/or autocratic government.

            If so, can you tell me how they have managed to stitch-up the statistics that tell us every decade since the 1970s has been warmer than its predecessor; and/or that extreme weather events of all kinds are becoming more frequent and more intense (as predicted by atmospheric physics for a warming planet)?… And please try responding with something that has not been repeatedly debunked such as “Global warming stopped in 1998″. David Rose tries that one roughly every six months and, every time he does, the Met Office (and many others) tell him why he is wrong…

            Sadly, however, whereas history may well always be written by the winners, conspiracy theories are, as David Aaronovitch points out in his book Voodoo Histories, generally ‘history’ as written by the losers; ‘bedtime stories’ for people who find reality far too scary to deal with; or as a means of abdicating any/all responsibility for the World not being as they would like it to be.

            Can I suggest you stop listening to people who tell you what you want to hear, stop pretending that all opinions are equally valid, and start dealing with the extremely high probability that the vast majority of relevantly qualified scientists know what they are talking about; and are not lying to you in order to perpetuate their research funding. You are picking a fight with history and science and, one thing I can guarantee, you will lose.

          2. Richard M says:1st February 2013 at 4:22 am“Can I suggest you stop listening to people who tell you what you want to hear”

            Why don’t you address the point I actually raised, rather than spout off about your favourite talking points?

            The world’s weather system is 4.5 billion years old. We have data for less than a century.

            Explain, please, how that is not joke science?

            It is on par with any of the ludicrous studies you will read in the Daily Mail about how staring at the Mona Lisa gives you cancer (or cures cancer depending on the day).

            As for this: “If so, can you tell me how they have managed to stitch-up the statistics that tell us every decade since the 1970s has been warmer than its predecessor”

            So what?

            The world is 4.5 billion years old. A couple of decades of warming? It could not be any less statistically relevant.

            ” the vast majority of scientists have examined all the palaeoclimatic evidence and concluded that the primary cause of ongoing climate disruption”

            I don’t imagine any ‘grand conspiracy’ at all. It is a collective inability to apply basic scientific rigour to a bandwagon. How exciting is it to suggest that we lack the data to decide either way.

            The conclusions that are drawn from the data-set examined are probably sound – but that is the exact problem.

            A sample of ten people does not mean it is representative for the rest of the planet.

            A trend of a few decades (disputed) does not indicate anything that is statistically significant over the life of the system.

            You blather about the palaeoclimatic evidence – but they are hardly sensitive and accurate measures of temperature, are they? Sharp temperature increases can easily exist without showing up in ice-core samples etc…

            As for your (and the environmental movement as a whole) deep love of argumentum ad populum, try to remember Copernicus, The Law of Parity, Steric hindrance, viruses as the cause of cancer, fusion reactors, et al.

            Scientific consensus and orthodoxy is nowhere near as cast iron as you seem to think it is.

            AGW is just a theory and one with, if viewed rationally, a less than compelling evidence base (4.5 billion years vs >100 years of hard data). Portraying it as anything else is disingenuous. Using it as a tool for policy setting is dangerous.

            There are many more environmental causes that are more deserving and get a pathetic fraction of the money or energy devoted to it. While we wring our hands about carbon credits we will probably lose the Rhino and African elephant and most of our rainforests besides.

          3. Martin Lack says:1st February 2013 at 11:17 amWith the greatest of respect, Richard, I know nothing about you; and I cannot tell where you are getting your information from. On the subject of climate science, however, I do hope it is not English Literature graduates like our host here. Nevertheless, I have addressed all your ‘favourite talking points’ about earth history and the instrumental record on my blog; so I do not propose to do so here.
            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/climate-science-in-a-nut-fragment/

            Climate sceptics are not like Galileo (or Copernicus); who were fighting against the anti-intellectual and obscurantist Catholic Church. Rejection of the modern-day consensus regarding anthropogenic climate disruption – theoretically deduced, confirmed by observation, and validated my predictive computer modelling – is the antithesis of what Copernicus and Galileo did for the advancement of science. It took the Catholic Church centuries to admit its error; and we can but hope that climate sceptics will now be a lot faster.

            If you are not a conspiracy theorist, why is it that you consider yourself more likely to be correct about climate science than the vast majority of climate scientists? Are they all just plain stupid? Thanks to Occam’s Razor, it is far more likely that the vast majority of climate scientists are correct and that the fossil fuel industry has – just as the tobacco industry did – orchestrated a lengthy campaign to discredit the science and the scientists that endanger its future profitability. If anyone is in any doubt, I think they should read this:
            http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

            Can I ask why you do not dispute the theory of gravity, the existence of the Higgs-Boson, or 22 dimensions of space-time? Could it perhaps be because (unlike the finite nature of this planet’s natural resources and recycling capabilities) the reality of these things does not demand changes in human behaviour to make it sustainable?
            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/the-co2-fairy-does-not-exist-yet/

          4. Lambutt says:2nd February 2013 at 6:44 amHilariously, after saying this:

            “You prefer to invoke a conspiracy theory that requires the vast majority of scientists and/or governments to agree to perpetuate a myth in order to frighten people into accepting ever higher levels of taxation and/or autocratic government”

            You move on, without even a whiff of shame, to this:

            “the fossil fuel industry has – just as the tobacco industry did – orchestrated a lengthy campaign to discredit the science and the scientists that endanger its future profitability.”

            Good gracious.

            I see you decided not to engage with the other examples of scientific orthodoxy that were proved to be incorrect. The more modern examples are much more relevant – no battles against the evil Catholics there.

            “If you are not a conspiracy theorist, why is it that you consider yourself more likely to be correct about climate science than the vast majority of climate scientists? ”

            This myth that fact is established by majority is the most bizzare outcome of this climate ‘debate’. Why? When has that ever been the case?

            And I don’t claim any special status for myself, either. I am merely pointing out what appears obvious and irrefutable – as other scientists have done.

            But of course this will just invoke a round of top-trumps style, ‘my scientist is better than your scientist nonsense’.

            It is the crusade mentality that has seized control of the argument that is so disturbing. A rational approach would be to embrace the uncertainty which clearly outweighs any of the certainties and is, after all, the heart of a scientific approach.

          5. Martin Lack says:2nd February 2013 at 10:00 amYou fail to distinguish between conspiracy theory (such as that NASA faked the Moon landings) and conspiracy fact (such as the industry-led disputation of science for commercial reasons). You also fail to explain, without invocation of conspiracy theory, why you do not to accept the explanation given by the majority of climate scientists for what is happening. Therefore, if not a conspiracy theorist, your must have fallen victim to the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas. There are no other choices.
            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/all-that-is-wrong-with-the-market-place-of-ideas/

            I am afraid that the Merchants of Doubt have converted residual uncertainty (in climate science) into unreasonable doubt (in the minds of a diminishing proportion of the general public). However, even if people will not believe scientists, it seems that they will believe the evidence of their own eyes:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248468/A-growing-number-global-warming-sceptics-Americans-say-global-warming-real-threat.html

          6. Dave Morris says:1st February 2013 at 10:03 pm‘Environmentalist morons’. You mean like NASA, perhaps?
            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            I could list untold other ‘morons’, as you call them, but it’s a waste of time, as your argument reflects an unfortunate yet typically prejudiced and closed-minded attitude, the ignorance of which is indicative of a total lack of comprehension to this vastly complex issue.

            Environmentalists are highlighting the signal, while your argument, if one can call it that, represents background noise.

            Seriously, go back to school.

          7. Richard M says:2nd February 2013 at 6:17 am“Environmentalists are highlighting the signal, while your argument, if one can call it that, represents background noise.”

            On and on you go without ever even engaging with the problem.

            “your argument reflects an unfortunate yet typically prejudiced and closed-minded attitude”

            What, by pointing out an irrefutable fact that we have a minuscule set of measurable and consistent data?

            You seem to think that I am screaming ‘its all just a conspiracy! its not happening!’. I am not. I am pointing out that if you approach the subject with the same scientific rigour that is applied elsewhere then it falls down at this very basic point.

            We don’t have enough data to make solid conclusions.

            Any theories derived from the available data is therefore suspect.

            Anyone who has even a passing understanding of scientific theory should be able to understand this.

            “Environmentalists are highlighting the signal, while your argument, if one can call it that, represents background noise.”

            This again highlights your complete unfamiliarity with a really quite basic concept. Try, hard as it will be for you, to imagine the issue if it were presented in another context.

            Imagine being told that there was a extreme correlation between the instances of repeat offenders and living next to electrical substations. All the data gathered points to a compelling case for causation – yet when you look at it the study covers ten people against a world population of 6.9 billion. You would (one would hope) dismiss it out of hand.

            Interesting, but hardly representative. Hardly a reason to dictate policy.

          8. Martin Lack says:2nd February 2013 at 9:45 am“Anyone who has even a passing understanding of scientific theory should be able to understand this” As I said, please explain to me why I should believe the vast majority of are apparently incapable of doing so.
          9. Dave Morris says:5th February 2013 at 9:41 amWow! I almost admire your blinkered stubbornness. Look, i understand what you’re saying. Really i do. My point is that when you say things like:
            “We don’t have enough data to make solid conclusions,”
            you make it sound like you’re a scientist studying and examining the data. Now obviously i don’t know you (praise Jesus), as i live in the real world, but i know enough from the immature comments above that you are not a scientist. Not even close. So comments like this are disingenuous at best, and incredibly harmful and destructive at worst. harmful because it’s so completely untrue. Destructive because the consequences of such narrow-minded bigotry and obtuseness is that ‘we’, i.e. humanity, will never address the issue until its too late.

            Why don’t you just read and listen to what scientists and experts are saying every day? The data is there, it is valid. The conclusions are painfully obvious and agreed by such an overwhelming majority, that, as you keep harping on about, the minority opinion – opinion, mind, represents such a minute number, that it is insignificant and ergo ignored by everyone. Except of course by non-scientist liars and idiots like Delingpole.

            Here, i’ll even humour you. I’ll throw you a bone. Hell, i’ll give you 2! (did you even watch the documentary ‘Home’ in the above link?):

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax#

            “On and on you go without ever engaging with the problem.”

            Mate, the problem is you! I hear what you’re saying about a lack of credible or valid data. I get it. It’s just that this argument is not true. It’s so wide of the mark as to be offensive.

            “by pointing out an irrefutable fact that we have a minuscule set of measurable and consistent data”

            Just because you say something, or believe something is irrefutable, doesn’t make it true or factual. What you are saying is not true. It is a lie. I’m not saying you’re a liar, as i’m sure you believe in what you say, much like the religious zealot believes in a bearded man sitting in a cloud and hating gay people, or like the insane person who believes their psychosis-induced imagined world to be reality. You are deluded, sir. And it’s only your ego that refuses to allow you to take a deep breath, read an article like this:

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

            and still have your head stuck in the sand.

            Ok, i’m done. Please don’t reply to this until you have read or watched the links as i’m really not interested in anything you have to say. I understand your argument, i just don’t accept it. Maybe if you were a scientist your opinion would carry some weight, but you’re not. So quit pretending you’re an expert that knows more than people like David Attenborough. I’m sick to the back teeth of arm-chair critics like you pretending your warped and corrupted world view should be respected.

    2. Carl Worsham says:19th February 2013 at 11:52 pmSo you are saying the NY Times is not closing it’s Environment Desk? I don’t understand. Or, are you just calling people names and ranting? What is the purpose of your post? To make yourself look stupid? If so, it worked.
      1. Martin Lack says:20th February 2013 at 11:26 amThe NYT may well have closed its Environment Desk but Andy Revkin still has a job there, so what exactly is the point of Mr Delingpole’s article? To make himself look stupid? If so, it worked..

        Dave Morris may have been a bit rude but he has a valid point: James is not a scientist and is on record as saying he has neither the time to read nor the ability to understand peer-reviewed scientific papers. Therefore, taking his cue from PR companies like Hill & Knowlton , he just sticks to trying to discredit science and scientists… because of another one of his acknowledged handicaps – his libertarian conservative prejudice.

  2. Timothy Phillips says:15th January 2013 at 11:31 pmJames, I read your article in support of Lindzen’s speech to the house of commons. You say: the facts speak for themselves, and yet, with a little research, something you seem to do little of, I have a gentle dismantling of his arguments by leading British climate scientists, some from the same venerable institutions you studied at! Of course, when one’s mind is so set in stone, then you will of course dismiss this re-buttle as scaremongering or leftist, money grabbing. Your stated position is in my opinion a very lazy one requiring no research or re-thinking.
    1. Martin Lack says:23rd January 2013 at 4:12 pmWell said, Timothy. You are presumably referring to Professor Lindzen’s speech to an invited audience in Committee Room 14 inside the Palace of Westminster on 22 Feb 2012. If so, unlike James, I was there for the whole speech and was prevented from asking a question because I tried first to address some of Lindzen’s misrepresentation of the facts. If you were not aware of all this already, a good place to start is this: No cause for alarm? – You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012).
  3. Martin Lack says:23rd January 2013 at 3:49 pmJames, as the banner to your blog legitimately asserts, you are an author, a blogger, a libertarian, and a political commentator. However, as this post well demonstrates, you are not a climate (or environmental) scientist.

    Have you read at least the Executive Summary of the new US National Climate Assessment (it is written for a non-specialist such as yourself)? If not, why not? Have you already discounted this as just more evidence the climate change hoax/conspiracy has now taken over large parts of the US government?
    See my World’s biggest watermelon found in Washington DC (27 April 2012).

    It disappoints me that you will not even acknowledge my existence. Is your ego so fragile that you are still annoyed about a stupid stunt I pulled two years ago? If so, this is a great shame because my purpose is not to attack you; I am trying to help you acknowledge the limitations of your own expertise (such as we all have).

    As I have made clear on my blog, I am no Watermelon; I am certainly not a Liberal or a Socialist; and therefore you and I have much more in common than you might have thought.

  4. AR99_64b says:9th February 2013 at 3:49 pmDelingpole, you are a self-confessed Bullingdon sycophant who can’t be trusted. I hope you enjoy being used by an entire industry to peddle lies which ultimately benefit it, not you. Eventually, you will be left out in the cold. And you’ll realise their promises were as empty as your soul.
    1. Martin Lack says:9th February 2013 at 4:08 pmAnonymity is great, isn’t it? Using my real name, I have to be so much more polite. However, since I do not think he is paid to tell lies on behalf of anyone (he genuinely believes what he writes makes sense), I concur with your analysis of the predicament in which Mr Delingpole will one day find himself.
  5. Johan Harald Berger says:8th April 2013 at 6:50 pmJohan Berger – frm. teacher in Norway – is chipping in to give thanks for the sundry information in your book, Watermelons, which I have just finished reading. The book seems well researched and is written in a style not pompous nor dubious – frankly, I learnt a LOT from it! If you are writing another book on, say, corruption in economy by the state, I will surely give it a read, but beware of the Liberal Media and their (still!) darling Barry Obama, who will fight tooth and claw to deflect from sanity. Utopianism is ever their ‘forte’..
  6. claude faria says:30th October 2013 at 11:27 pmI’m not a scientist, else, I’m a poor fellow that lives in a third world country riddled with corruption, socialism and stupidity. But I read Delingpole’s book, and I think he’s got a good point. Im my overt scientific ignorance, I just can’t figure up how can CO2, that’s present in the atmosphere in a rare proportion of less than 0,3%, represent such a menace for humankind. Much less cow’s farting… You, climate alarmists, are not right. You can’t be right. It’s illogical. It’s non sense. Ockam’s razor tells me.

Comments are closed.

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

Why we fight

Over the top once more

My resolution this year is to be much more diplomatic and emollient and generally more sympathetic to the other point of view.

Naah. Just kidding.

But what I did think would be a good idea at the start of yet another year’s blogging is to remind ourselves where we’re at and why it is that I do the things I do, write the things I write, and say them in the uncompromising, no-prisoners-taken way I say them.

You might think it was because of people like this man – Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz in Austria, who argued on the university website (till he was embarrassed into taking his comments down) that all climate sceptics should be executed. Since I’m one of those on “ze list”, I suppose I should be quite exercised by this. But to be honest I’m delighted and feel I owe Herr Throatcutt a huge debt of thanks. He has done probably more to discredit the cause of climate change alarmism than perhaps anyone since Richard Curtis’s infamous “No Pressure” film – aka Splattergate.

No, the bigger problem are not the out-and-out eco-fascists but their useful idiots among the broader populace. Mild-mannered and reasonable-seeming people like this kindly gentleman, one Dr James Willis, who emailed me over Christmas thus:

This is the text of my new year email to quite a lot of people, sadly the lovely pictures don’t work in this text box. Email and I will gladly send them:

Dear All,

On 6 June 2006 our youngest grandchild was born in Oxford. This was the photograph I took that evening:
Inline images 1
That same morning I was giving the opening keynote address to the North European Conference on Travel Medicine (NECTM 2006) in the great hall of the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh. My subject was the urgency of facing down the denialists who were delaying remedial action to mitigate the worst effects of man-made global warming. You can read the address here: www.bit.ly/SYAwCR

Since then the predictions of mainstream climate science have been been shown to be, if anything, conservative. And the denialists, with a few exceptions, have become even more entrenched, and even more influential. The general public continue to think, contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence, that the science is still in some kind of doubt.

That baby is now nearly seven and here is the picture I took recently of him playing the one-string guitar he says I helped him to make:
Inline images 2
Since 2006 I have completed a BA Humanities with Literature First Class from the Open University and done a lot of acting and singing. In other words, I am not an ‘environmentalist’. Certainly no more than I am a ‘photographer’, or a ‘woodwork hobbyist’, and certainly much less than I am a grandfather, father, husband… In fact I am an ordinary human being who is desperately worried that we are missing our chance to save humanity from a terrible danger.

What I have decided to do is to hire the main hall at Alton Assembly Rooms for 7.30pm on Wednesday 16th January 2013 when I will repeat the talk I gave on the little boy’s birthday, word for word and slide for slide. Lesley and I are paying all the expenses it will be entirely free. Do come, and do read the talk first if you want to. I read it from time to time myself and stand by every word. I am also going to send invitations to as many celebrity denialists as I can think of. I don’t suppose they will come, because I don’t suppose they think we are very significant here in Alton.

I would like to prove them wrong about that.

Best wishes,

James Willis

Now the reason I quote Dr Willis’s letter because it contains so many of the tropes and rhetorical fallacies to which the climate alarmist movement is prey, all of them wrapped up in a blanket of warm caringness and noble altruism. To whit:

1. The copious cloying references to his grandson. Climate true believers think they have a monopoly on compassion. They think they are the only people who love their children and grandchildren or even stop to consider the plight of “future generations”. This gives them the moral authority to write surreptitiously malevolent, passive-aggressive emails to people they’ve never met and whose opinions they’ve never troubled to understand, accusing them of being “celebrity denialists.”

2. “Denialists.” I emailed Dr Willis to ask him what it was that these “denialists” were denying. I pointed out that this inflammatory term had been quite deliberately chosen by alarmist propagandists to equate scepticism about climate “science” and policy with Holocaust denial. Dr Willis replied: “I use the term denialist in the usual sense to denote someone who denies something. Not really very inflammatory, or puzzling.” So I wrote again to ask what exactly these “denialists” were denying. He replied: “Oh dear. I think you know exactly what I mean, James.”

3. “That same morning I was giving the opening keynote address to the North European Conference on Travel Medicine (NECTM 2006) in the great hall of the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh.” Read the speech – if you can bear it. As Dr Willis makes clear he has no specialist expertise in this field. But that’s not necessarily a problem – think mining engineer Steve McIntyre; think economist Ross McKitrick; think ex-banker Nic Lewis: many of the biggest most recent advances in our understanding of climate science have come from non-climate-scientists. What is more worrying, though, is how cursorily Willis has looked into the subject on which he presumes, nonetheless, to deliver a keynote lecture at an international conference. His sources? Wikipedia; the Independent; the BBC.

4. “Since then the predictions of mainstream climate science have been been shown to be, if anything, conservative…” etc  Evidence???

5. Well, you get the idea.

If only Dr Willis were just another harmless, elderly eccentric who’d got the wrong end of the stick. Problem is, I suspect he’s a lot closer to where the public still is in its understanding of “climate science” than I am. And if you want to know why that is, you only have to look at their sources of authority.

Here are two of them – TV’s perma-pout, smiley-boy astronomer Brian Cox and “comedian” Robin Ince (H/T Bishop Hill) – writing a New Statesman editorial explaining why we should trust the scientists who gave us the Hockey Stick, Glaciergate and 4-degrees-C-rise-by-the-end-of-the-21st-century computer model – and completely ignore all the evidence which contradicts them. But Cox and Ince are not alone. With them are: the BBC; the Independent; the Prince of Wales; Walkers Crisps; the Guardian; the New York Times; the Royal Society; Simon Singh; Ben Goldacre; every stand up comic apart from possibly Al Murray; every pop star; 99.9 per cent of all other celebrities; the Times; the Sunday Times; ABC; NBC; the CSIRO; the Australian government; Tim Yeo; Lord Deben; the UK government; the EU; the UN; the Obama administration; Big Wind; the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; RIBA; London Zoo; the British Antarctic Survey; the National Academy of Sciences; Sir Paul “Pnurse” Nurse; Ed Begley Jr; Galadriel from Lord of the Rings; Leo Di Caprio; Knut the dead baby polar bear; the Sierra Club; Coldplay; the WWF; Glastonbury Festival; George Soros; Richard Branson; Tim Flannery; David Suzuki; Michael Moore; Radiohead; Mackie’s ice cream; Alex Salmond; Mikhail Gorbachev; the Hon. Sir Jonathan Porritt; Julia Gillard; Build-A-Bear; your kids’ schoolteacher; my kids’ schoolteacher; the Miliband bros; Springwatch’s Chris Packham; Wikipedia; everyone in DECC save John Hayes; everyone at DEFRA save Owen Paterson; Dara O’Briaaiaann; Richard Bacon, PhD.

Not one of the people or institutions on that list above, I think it’s accurate to say, has the remotest understanding of what it is that climate sceptics think or why it is that they might have very excellent reasons for thinking it. This, I would suggest, means we have a very serious problem on our hands.

On a personal level, it’s a problem for us climate sceptics because it means we find ourselves continually being vilified – and denied airspace or funding or preferment – on the basis not of what we actually believe and say but on a grotesque caricature version thereof, whereby we are made out to be somehow anti-science or corrupted by money or ideology. (I think the technical term for this is “projection”)

On a broader, economic, socio- and geo-political level, it’s a problem because it means that public policy continues to be hijacked by environmentalist ideologues who have successfully foisted their junk-science, anti-capitalist, self-loathing, misanthropic, hair-shirt propaganda on a credulous public – with results that are already proving disastrous for us all.

Am I angry with these scumbags? You bet I am. Do I think they deserve the unpleasant epithets I cast at them? Absolutely not – they deserve insults far nastier and more graphic than I could ever get away with delivering in a family newspaper.

Yes, I know there are those who think I sometimes go over the top in the way I sledge the opposition. But this is not a criticism I’m going to buy – or ever will buy. Did Churchill ever issue a wartime directive that, following complaints submitted by the German embassy in Dublin, soldiers should refrain from singing hurtful songs about Herr Hitler’s monotesticular status? Not as far as I can recall. In war, all is fair game. When the other side behaves badly, it deserves to be called on it – in the most explicit terms possible – not excused on the dubious grounds that if we’re a bit nicer to the Imperial Japanese Army and don’t draw any nasty cartoons depicting them with buck teeth and thick spectacles maybe next time they’ll desist from tying wounded prisoners to trees and using them for bayonet practice.

As I argue at the end of Watermelons, there’s only one side in this debate which considers it acceptable or desirable to:

Rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.

And it most definitely ain’t the people on my side of the argument.

Related posts:

  1. Men fight for their ‘mates’ — it is the secret of why they so love war
  2. I’m learning to fight my demons: One man’s struggle with depression
  3. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  4. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain

 

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

Tim Yeo: no headline can do him justice

Slimeball of the year

Yeo: Yeuchh!

I’ve just gone and voted for Tim Yeo MP in Bogpaper.com’s Slimeball of the Year competition. I hope you will too. The competition is stiff (Ed Balls, Keith Vaz, Lord Deben – truly, with his silver salver of golden-wrapped balls of suppurating ordure the ambassador is spoiling us) but for me the winner is still a no brainer.

We’ve detailed one or two of the Problems With Tim “Trougher” Yeo here several times this year.

Just Why Is Tory MP Tim Yeo So Passionate About Green Issues?

Tim Yeo: like a cross between Ebola and Chris Huhne? (I was threatened with legal action after that one by the World Ebola Council, which argued I had no business sullying the name of a blameless disease with such dodgy associations)

Tim Yeo MP – even when he’s right he’s wrong.

and

Tory sleaze is worse than ever: Yeo and Deben must go!

Guido had a few good ones this year too. There was the one about Tim Yeo’s China Bonanza. and the one about the highly beneficial deal he struck regarding London Taxi legislation which, even Yeo eventually seemed to recognise, might be seen as pushing his conflicts of interest a bit too far. Then there’s this one (about fracking) and this one, where Guido spells it out once more:

Conflicted Energy and Climate Change select committee chairman Tim Yeo is at it again today:

“Lumbering the economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas would be like running an office using a fax machine in the age of the iPad. I think the choice facing Britain is clear. We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system, or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy.”

Tim Yeo’s green interests in full:

Chairman of AFC Energy, company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Wage: £4,340-a-month.
Chairman of TMO Renewables, which develops and supplies technology for second generation biofuels. Wage: £5,832-a-month.
Director of ITI Energy, manufacturer of environmentally friendly ‘clean’ gasification technology.

My main worry about Tim Yeo, though, is that he is not merely routinely unpleasant but actively dangerous. Among the few to have noticed just how dangerous he is is Richard North at Eureferendum, who notes the terrifying, eco-fascistic undertones of a speech Yeo gave recently at Bloomberg’s HQ.

Instead of “lumbering the UK economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas”, Yeo wants, “super efficient solar cells, anaerobic digestion, wind power, new nuclear reactors, wave and tidal power and carbon capture and storage”. These, he declares, are the technologies of the future. “Smart meters, new grid technology and increased interconnection across the continent will lead to a new ‘energy internet'”.

What we then see for our money is, “decentralising electricity generation, giving consumers much more control of their use of energy, and empowering people and businesses, both large and small, to produce and sell electricity back to the grid themselves”.

But what Yeo then describes should chill the very marrow of your bones. “The dynamic demand management allowed by these new technological developments”, he tells us, “will help to address the problem posed by increasing proportions of intermittent generation in the system; gradually reducing the amount of gas back up that is needed”.

If you can’t see what the problem is here, let me explain. Up until now we have all lived in a world where we expect to enjoy electricity on demand. When we want a cup of tea, for example, we take it for granted that we can put on the kettle there and then. It would strike us as barmy beyond measure that we might have to wait for two or three hours until such time as the National Grid deemed it fit to provide us with the electricity we desired. Yet this is the principle behind those “smart meters” and “new grid technology” which Yeo is advocating. Yeo and his fellow green ideologues and eco-profiteers are trying to usher in a new world in which it is the State – through the National Grid – which decides when, where and how much electricity you get to use, not you the consumer.

I first cottoned on to this when I was researching Watermelons:

You hear “smart” employed in its new meaning quite often by environmental propagandists and technocrats these days, as for example, in an interview on BBC Radio 4 in March 2011 with Steve Holliday, chief executive of Britain’s electricity connecting network the National Grid.“The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Traditionally “smarter” has tended to mean positive things like “more intelligent”, “better designed” , “sharper” or “quicker”. But not in this context. “The time when consumers were free to use electricity whenever they wanted is coming to an end,” Holliday is basically saying. “Now we must prepare ourselves for a new golden age of environmental righteousness, when power is rationed according to the whim of Big Brother.”

It’s no surprise that self-confessed watermelons like Caroline Lucas MP should be four square behind such schemes. But what, you might not unreasonably ask, is a Tory MP doing trying to advance something so inimical to conservative principles as state-controlled energy rationing? This is eco-fascism, pure and simple. It’s not about free markets; it’s not about consumer choice; it’s not about a healthy economy; and it’s most definitely not about rationalism or common sense. Remember, we are about to enter a new era of abundant, relatively cheap, home-grown energy – the shale gas revolution. This revolution will make a mockery of all the assumptions behind so-called “smart growth” – ie that scarce resources need to be preserved, that we need “energy security”, and that the only way we can achieve this is through “rationing” sexily rebranded as something desirable and “smart.”

At the moment “smart growth” is just an unpleasant twinkle in the eyes of a few (very well-placed) green ideologues. But just you watch as, with the help of eco-fascist-dominated government departments like DECC, hard-left lobbyists like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, hairshirt anti-prosperity movements like Transition Towns and their amen corner on the Guardian’s Environment pages, the concept slowly mutates from “What? Energy rationing by the government? We’d never stand for it” to linchpin of government energy policy.

The single best thing the Conservatives could do in 2013 is boot Tim Yeo out of every position of power he holds and watch as he crosses the floor to his natural home: Caroline Lucas’s barmy, misanthropic, anti-capitalist Greens.

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. Tory sleaze is worse than ever: Yeo and Deben must go!
  3. Broken Britain
  4. Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne

3 thoughts on “Tim Yeo: no headline can do him justice”

  1. Phoenixw2 says:4th January 2013 at 12:15 amThe Eagles’s had a lyric, ‘You can’t hide those lyin’ eyes’ …. well.
  2. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:33 pm‘Self-serving, deceitful, unprincipled, dishonourable cunt’ perhaps??

    Can’t say that in HOC of course.

    But then again, if Hitler had been in there you couldn’t have called him dishonourable either!

    About time that the HOC had a mechanism for calling the dishonest, the dishonourable what they really are.

    CACAC and CACAC I call it.

    Unfortunately I”d be named by Bercow if I used it on the floor of the House.

    Why, I really can’t understand…….

  3. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:33 pm‘Self-serving, deceitful, unprincipled, dishonourable cunt’ perhaps??

    Can’t say that in HOC of course.

    But then again, if Hitler had been in there you couldn’t have called him dishonourable either!

    About time that the HOC had a mechanism for calling the dishonest, the dishonourable what they really are.

    CACAC and CACAC I call it.

    Unfortunately I”d be named by Bercow if I used it on the floor of the House.

    Why, I really can’t understand…….

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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