Tag: AGW

Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo! | James Delingpole

September 27, 2009

I’ve just had an email from someone signing herself Jo Abbess Bsc wanting to know whether I did a science degree. She has written it up at her online-CV-cum-website.

Jo who? The name rang a vague bell so I Googled her.  Abbess, it turns out, was the blog bully who last year demanded the BBC censor a true story on its website about global cooling. She didn’t like the way it gave succour to evil Global Warming Deniers.

So she wrote to the BBC’s science editor Roger Harrabin a series of finger wagging emails, one of which went:

“It would be better if you did not quote sceptics. Their voice is everywhere on every channel.” [Really? She should try watching BBC sometime]. “They are deliberately instructing the emergence of the truth. I would ask: please reserve the main BBC Online channel for the emerging truth.”

When Harrabin replied, not altogether unreasonably, that there were no factual inaccuracies in his story, Abbess made a threat:

“I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”

Harrabin got the message. (Not as though he is exactly the most neutral of reporters on AGW anyway, as anyone familiar with his  “polar bears melt and Tuvalu sinks while the coal-fired power stations of cigar-smoking capitalists belch unprecedented quantities of CO2 into Mother Gaia’s lungs” style of eco-reporting will know).

He caved in and amended his story so that it accorded more correctly with Fraulein Abbess’s particular weltanschauung.

You can read the full story here at the Register.

And now the woman’s on to me, Lord help us. No, Jo, love – unlike you I am not blessed with a physics degree from Warwick University. But does my humble arts degree really disqualify me from commenting on the wilder excesses of the self-flagellating, misanthropic, tendentious, dishonest and hysterical “green” movement?

Does anyone really need a science degree to understand that a five fold increase in the polar bear population between the 1950s and now does not constitute a catastrophic decline?

Is it really that scientifically demanding to work out that if computer models show global temperatures rising inexorably with CO2, and we suddenly enter a ten- or twenty-year period of global cooling, then there’s something a bit untrustworthy about those computer models?

Fortunately, as an English literature graduate, there are at least some areas of the green debate on which I am unquestionably fit to comment. Take this piece of  doggerel I found on the Guardian comments pages the other day, on the kind of thinking we all need to embrace if we are ever to heal the world:

The new thinking has to be something like this :-
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
The only way we make it out of here alive is if we believe, and act as if
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies
There are no enemies.

The author of this poem, I would say, makes William McGonagall look like Keats, has a lightness of touch that makes Polly Toynbee look like Noel Coward, and a depth of political insight which makes Tinky Winky Teletubby look like Thomas Jefferson. I’m sure the author of the piece who signed herself “Jo Abbess” cannot possibly be any relation of the distinguished Warwick University physics graduate who wrote asking about my academic credentials.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  2. Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their ‘science’ collapses
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report

3 Responses to “Climate fear promoter Jo Abbess has a science degree. Well done, Jo!”

  1. Bud says:September 30, 2009 at 1:51 amWho the fuck is Jo Abbess?Seriously, who?

    I mean, ignoring your non-existent grasp on the scientific issues of climate change, how have you managed to manufacture an entire crowing blog post about someone who no-one even knew existed until she emailed you?

    Grow up, James. Anyone with a degree in anything ought to know there is a difference between warning someone about losing credibility and censoring them, as if ‘Jo Abbess’ even had the power to do the latter. You more than anyone should know this, as the author of numerous irrelevent climate-denial crap.

  2. Samoys says:October 3, 2009 at 6:04 pmlot about you
  3. dilandinga says:October 4, 2009 at 8:46 pmMXAnbY I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Clarkson, the Baronet’s granddaughter and a pile of poo | James Delingpole

September 19th, 2009

“I’m dumping dung at Clarkson’s gates so he might understand that his attitude will land us all in the —-,” said Westminster- and Cambridge-educated Tamsin Omond, baronet’s granddaughter, yesterday, as she danced up and down on the pile of horse manure she’d dumped on the Top Gear presenter’s doorstep while dressed as a suffragette.

Her parents must be so proud. But I ruddy well wouldn’t be if I’d forked out £9,172 a term for my daughter’s education.  That’s how much the current Westminster boarding fees are. If you’re a day pupil they are a mere £6,352 a term. I dare say things were slightly less expensive when little Tammy was there. But it’s still a fair bet it cost Mr and Mrs Omond an arm and a leg to educate their feisty and fearless young agitator.

What is it about privately educated, toffy rich kids and the modern green movement? Obviously there’s none quite so grand as Old Etonian the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt (both a baronet and the son of a Lord), but billionaire’s son (and Old Etonian, natch) Zac Goldsmith is hardly what you’d call a smelly prole; nor is eco-columnist Charles Clover (a Wet – ie an old boy of Tamsy Wamsy’s alma mater Westminster), nor is George Monbiot (who went to Palladian finishing school for the nice but dim Stowe); nor of course is desperately WASP-establishment Climate Fear Promoter Al Gore. Then of course there’s Prince Charles, who, though something of a Hanoverian arriviste still knows enough not to eat the peas off his fish knife or drop too many aitches when he goes to dinner with his upmarket chum Sir Jonathon.

As for the Plane Stupid and Climate Camp lot – it is said that even if you went to a good grammar school, they still rag you for being a despicable  little oik, rather as George Osborne was by the Old Etonians during in his time with the Bullingdon Club. Even their protest banners are made from 100 per cent Egyptian cotton percale sheets from John Lewis (bought at full price, not in the sale).

But back to that private school question. I am currently making enquiries as to how I might best get my own offspring into decent public schools. Not being born to the purple like most members of the modern green movement, I may have to do so via a bursary. But from what I can see of the alumni of our great schools I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s worth it.

Surely, the point of sending your child to private school is give them a better education than they would have had in the state sector. They would emerge, you would hope, with a capacity for original thinking, an ability to look at the world empirically and understand the difference between objective truth and the mere clamour of the times and the ranting of the mob.

But apparently not. There is nothing clever or original or indeed counter-cultural about the modern green movement. They are protesters pushing against an open door. Any fool can go to Jeremy Clarkson’s house dressed in frills and chant drivel. What takes far, far more courage and originality of thought is to look at the world, see how much money is being made from the “climate-change” industry, see how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted in the name of environmental righteousness, see how much of our beautiful countryside is going to be destroyed in the name of ’saving’ it, then to take a stand and enunciate with your impeccable, public school diction: “Enough is jolly well enough! Up with this I will not put!”

Related posts:

  1. Jeremy Clarkson’s critics should be taken out and shot
  2. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  3. The curious rise of bottled water
  4. Climategate 2.0

Two Responses to “Clarkson, the Baronet’s granddaughter and a pile of poo”

  1. dilandinga says:October 5, 2009 at 10:13 amuhtC82 I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!
  2. ramspace says:October 5, 2009 at 10:23 amThese miserable thugs are celebrating at their website: IdiotMedia.UK They talk of “direct action” against “climate criminals.” They justify their criminal behavior by pointing to the dire state of the Arctic: “The Arctic is expected to be ice free in the summertime sometime between 2011 and 2015.” HA! Utter fools. I hope Clarkson goes on to make a billion dollars with an even BIGGER program that burns even MORE fuel.

Remember When Ecologists Used to Give a Damn about Birds and Trees and Stuff?

I do. When I was growing up, nature was something you appreciated for what it was. Something whose beauties you marvelled at and whose wonders you were taught to admire at school. You knew how to tell the difference between a smooth and a great crested newt; between a red admiral and a peacock; you studied the habitats of gall wasps; you counted worms; on nature walks you listened to the moan of doves in immemorial elms; you watched botany pwogwammes pwesented by a weally enthusiastic man who couldn’t pronounce his “rs” called David Bellamy.

This all came back to me when I read about Bellamy’s latest plan – under the auspices of the Conservation Foundation – to restore the English elm by planting 10,000 saplings. Grown from the  cuttings of some of the few hundred apparently disease-resistant elms that remain in Britain, they will replace the victims of one of the greatest British ecological disasters of our lifetime: the Dutch elm disease which killed around 25 million trees and changed our landscape forever.

What a hero! And I don’t just mean regarding the elm. David Bellamy is the British equivalent to one of those dissident scientists they used to persecute in the Soviet Union for refusing to follow the acceptable political orthodoxy. In British science’s case, of course, that orthodoxy is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Cast doubt on AGW, as Bellamy has done, and you are considered anathema by the “scientific community”. This is why he lost his 15-year long presidency of the charity Plantlife and also why he was booted out of his job as president of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. You’ll notice he doesn’t get used an awful lot by the BBC these days either. Gee, I wonder why that could be.

Yet when it comes to loving the planet, Bellamy is the real deal. He cares so passionately about nature that he got himself arrested in 1983 for blockading the Franklin River in Australia to try to stop a proposed dam. In the Eighties, he did more than anyone on British television to communicate the joys of botany. This man genuinely believes what all naturalists should believe  that nature is something to be cherished, preserved, and perhaps above all enjoyed. No doubt this is why is he is such a fierce opponent of wind farms on sites of natural beauty.

But how many scientists involved in the field of nature and conservation actually do think this way any more? Passing few. Look in the papers: almost every story involving nature you will ever read has been skewed to accommodate the prevailing meme that it’s all dying off due to climate change and it’s mostly our fault. Look at how the subject is now taught in schools: not “hello trees, hello sky” but “Eeek! We’re all doomed!”. Zoos are no longer jolly places for kids to gawp at unusual beasts while Johnny Morris does the amusing voiceover, but thinly disguised animal concentration camps; butterflies are no longer to be differentiated for all that really matters is that you know that species are in catastrophic decline thanks to ‘climate change (quite untrue incidentally: habitat loss plays a far more important role in this); nature is no longer a pleasure but a stick with which to beat ourselves because of our carbon emitting sins.

So three cheers for David Bellamy – unlike so many of the green movement’s hair-shirt miserabilists – a true lover of nature.

Three cheers too for the Conservation Foundation. If you’ve a second, go and visit its website and see some of the things it does. (Alright so there’s a bit of guff about ‘diversity’ but then, how else can a charity get on these days?). It has helped turn an old sewage treatment plant into a wildflower meadow; it has restored the roach to the Hampshire Avon; it tries to protect Britain’s ancient yews; it wants to preserve the large blue butterfly; now it’s bringing back the elm.

One of the more poisonous myths put about by the International Climate-Fear-Promotion Movement (prop: Al Gore) is that if you’re not with them, you must perforce be some kind of crazy, Gaia-raping, nature-hating scumbag in the pay of Big Oil. Bellamy is living proof that this just is not so. More power to his elbow!

Related posts:

  1. If the NHS is ‘fair’, give me unfairness any day
  2. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  3. Glorious send-up
  4. When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…

 

Cap and Trade: Which Part of ‘We Can’t Afford It’ Doesn’t Obama Understand?

Obama's crazy new Bill will do nothing to stop this

But they still don’t produce as much hot air as Al Gore…

Wakey wakey America: nightmare day is here. The day when the House of Representatives votes on probably the most pointless, damaging, wrong-headed and suicidally dumb piece of legislation since…

Well I was going to say Prohibition, but even Prohibition had a certain twisted logic to it. (You know: “Daddy, why does your breath smell funny? Why do you keep hitting Mom? Why’s there no money for food again this week?” etc. I’m not saying I’m persuaded by this argument but at least you can concede the Temperance movement had one).

So that must mean then that the Climate Bill – aka Waxman-Markey after the two, rather sinister-looking representatives who wrote it – being pushed through the House today is quite simply the worst piece of US legislation in living memory. And possibly beyond.

Why? Well at the cost of the biggest tax increase in American history, it will achieve precisely zilch.

(Actually, not quite zilch. There are one or two people who are going to be doing very nicely out of it, from the Libtard apparatchiks and Algore fellow travellers who’ve invested in the right carbon-trading companies to all those vested interests in the Mid-West who have been bought off with the inevitable pork barrelling concessions designed to ease the bill’s awkward passage.)

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation the Waxman-Markey bill –  whose centrepiece is a tax on carbon emissions, often known as “cap and trade” because it sounds innocuous and no one understands what it means – will by 2035 reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. (That’s more than 6 times the projected cost of President Obama’s ENTIRE universal healthcare programme).

But the misery doesn’t end there:

“In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million.”

“Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.”

And how exactly will the world benefit from this swingeing tax on the stuff every one of us breathes out every minute of day?

“According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.”

There’s ‘no debate on carbon pollution’ jeopardizing the planet, claims President Obama, who clearly gets all his information from the liberal broadcast media and the dead tree press, both of which for reasons known only to themselves cleave to the Al Gore “Anthropogenic Global Warming” meme like cognitive dissonant rats to a sinking ship.

Out here in the real world, meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer of us who want any more of their money of wasted on this bizarre eco-fascist fantasy. It was an exciting and novel distraction in the good old days when we still felt rich and a bit guilty for being rich and wanted to devise new ways of punishing ourselves for our (perceived) eco sins. But not any more. We haven’t the money to bribe the Third World to reduce its carbon emissions; nor are our economies nearly strong enough to absorb the burden of green taxation and zealous  and intrusive green legislation.

What’s more, the science is increasingly with us. Today I shall be praying with all my heart that Waxman-Markey dies the death it so fully deserves. So too will everyone else in the world who values liberty, a healthy global economy and plain common sense.

Enough ManBearPig already! The beast must be slain!

Related posts:

  1. Bloody marvellous Aussies kill carbon emissions bill
  2. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  3. Welcome to the New World Order
  4. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?