Wind Industry Big Lies no. 1: Fossil Fuels Are More ‘Subsidised’ Than Renewables

Barry “Dork Brain” Gardiner

Is Labour MP Barry Gardiner vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? Personally since he appears to be a litigious sort of fellow I’m plumping for the latter. That’s why, I think it’s quite possible that when he was at his public school Haileybury his nickname was “Dork Brain.” (Though I have no more evidence for this than Gardiner does for most of his hysterical views on climate change)

But I leave you to draw your own conclusions after his recent claim, in an interview with Energy Live news, that the Coalition is favouring fossil fuel energy over wind energy through generous subsidies. (H/T Bishop Hill)

Here’s what Gardiner said:

He claimed the third [lie behind government energy policy] is that Government is “neutral” and doesn’t pick favourites in energy: “Last year the OECD announced that in 2010 the UK subsidised fossil fuels by £3.6 billion. In last year’s budget, the Chancellor announced a further £65million to oil and gas in 2011… In contrast the total subsidy paid to onshore wind in 2010 was just £400million.”

As Bishop Hill notes, he made the same claim in August in the New Statesman:

Last year, the OECD estimated that in 2010 the subsidies for coal, gas and petrol in the UK amounted to £3.6bn on top of which the Chancellor, in the 2012 budget, has announced further exploration and production subsidies of £65m to develop the West of Shetland fields.

So it must be true, right? Not only is Gardiner an elected member of parliament but he’s Ed Miliband’s Special Envoy For Climate Change and the Environment, and also Vice President of (the environmental movement’s sinister taxpayer-funded answer to SPECTRE) Globe International. A man with such important and influential public positions wouldn’t be in the business of telling whopping great porkies, now, would he?

Well, whether Gardiner is lying or thick as pig poo he is most certainly mistaken. Let’s examine his claim more closely in order to spare him and those like him the embarrassment of disseminating false information again.

The claim seems to have begun life in this OECD report, characteristically misrepresented by the Guardian’s Ubergruppenklimatischewahnsinnigefuhrer Damian Carrington in a piece titled Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks. It claimed:

Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010.

This was at best a tendentious stretching of the truth unworthy of a serious newspaper. (If you believe the Guardian deserves such a title). At worst, it’s pure political activism. In fact, as Bishop Hill notes, the “subsidies” claimed by Carrington and Gardiner weren’t subsidies at all.

The OECD paper does not mention subsidies of £3.6bn. That figure refers to the value of the reduced rate of VAT on energy. This does not meet the definition of a subsidy, which involves a cash payment. And since it applies to all kinds of energy it cannot be a “fossil fuel” subsidy either, so Gardiner’s claim about picking favourites is patently false.

His claim about the further £65m for oil and gas is not a subsidy either, being a reduction in a supertax (the Supplementary Charge) which is paid by oil companies but not by renewables firms. This therefore is not a subsidy and demonstrates that government policy favours renewables over fossil fuels the opposite of what Gardiner has said.

This was also pointed out in June by Telegraph blogs’ own Tim Worstall. In reality, he noted, if you go by Carrington’s definition of a subsidy, it’s the wind industry which is subsidised, not the fossil fuel industry, to the tune of £41 billion.

And, if you want chapter and verse on this issue, go to the excellent Communities Against Turbines Scotland site (where the Resistance is articulate and strong) and look up Stuart Young’s report. Government subsidy for Renewables in 2012, it notes, is £1,780 million pounds. Subsidies paid to the gas, oil and coal industry in the same period: 0 pounds.

To recap then: the UK fossil fuel industry is not “subsidised” in any meaningful sense of the word “subsidy.” Charging less tax on something is not “subsidising” something.

The government does not give fossil fuel companies sweeteners to encourage them to produce more fossil fuel power. That’s because they don’t need any incentives: the fossil fuel power industry is perfectly viable without subsidy.

The government does, however, give massive sweeteners to the renewable industry wind especially. Onshore turbines are given a 100 per cent subsidy from the government (aka the taxpayer). Offshore turbines are given a 200 per cent subsidy. Without these sweeteners not a single wind turbine would be built because the power they produce being intermittent and unreliable is to all intents and purposes worthless in a free market.

Therefore what Carrington claims in that Guardian article is untrue. What Gardiner told Energy Live and the New Statesman is untrue. They really ought to know better and now they do. So if they repeat these claims again it won’t merely be down to an error of extreme stupidity, will it? It will be an abject and cynical lie.

Now we’ve settled that one I wish Gardiner the best of luck in his threatened libel action with the daily-more-magnificent-and-admirable Ben Pile (of Climate Resistance) over some Tweets summarised here by the Bishop:

@BarryGardiner is a liar about the OECD analysis, even if he is right about energy proces rising. […] Shame on you, Barry.

A tweet that ended up with quite an interesting exchange of views:

GARDINER: Your tweet is actionable. Please withdraw it. I correctly state OECD figures for Fossil Fuel Subsidies were £3.6bn in 2010

PILE: you can’t call people liars and complain about being called a liar. Oecd figures are for reduced rate of vat, not subsidiesand you know that oecd figures are reduced rate, not subsidies, hence you are dishonest.

GARDINER: Also I said gov policy was based on a lie. No named person = not actionable You named me = actionable Please retract

PILE: it’s true. You knew that what you said wasn’t true. So you lied. I said so. That ain’t ‘actionable’. If you think it isi’ll withdraw my tweet if you explain that you were wrong about subsidies to energy live newsWhen did it become ‘actionable’ to call an MP a liar, anyway?

GARDINER: So reducing tax to favour the consumption of a particular product does not count as a subsidy in your book? Really?

PILE: no, reducing tax is taking less money, subsidy is giving money. I’m surprised an MP can’t tell the difference. Hmm.and reduced rate doesn’t favour any particular form of energy. Applies to renewables too. Surprised you don’t know this.

Send me your email address, and i’ll give you my postal address so you can get your lawyer to proceed


PILE: let me up the stakes by adding ‘coward’ to liar.

PILE: thanks. I’ve got no money or property, I hope you realise. Could cost you.

Yep. Popcorn time.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. We need to talk about wind farms…
  4. The best article on wind farms you will ever read

One thought on “Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables”

  1. Tallbloke says:20th December 2012 at 10:27 pmIs Delingpole vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? In actual fact the the subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf those for renewables.

Comments are closed.

Why the BBC Cannot Be Trusted on ‘Climate Change’: The Full Story

A story of hysterical warmistry

"Watermelon? Me? But I'm such a lovely old man..."

“Watermelon? Me? But I’m such a lovely old man…”

When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous  MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.

How then has it managed to breach its social responsibility so frequently and flagrantly?

Thanks to the combined efforts of the great Bishop Hill and the similarly wondrous Tony Newbery at the Harmless Sky blog, we now have the most comprehensive and thoroughly damning account yet of how the BBC became such an important part of a sinister political campaign to promote climate change alarmism. I recommend reading their report in full at either of their sites linked above. But here below are some of the highlights.

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

Government policy soon became BBC policy too. In Feb 2007, Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman had this to say about BBC “impartiality” on Climate Change:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

So when did naked bias on AGW become official BBC policy? Newbery and the Bishop trace to the notorious seminar mentioned before in this blog. (Can anyone find the link? I can’t yet….)

This was the one where the keynote speaker was Lord May, whose warmist bias is elegantly encapsulated in this paragraph of the Bishop/Newbery report.

Although Lord May is unquestionably a distinguished scientist, he is not a climate scientist, and he has been a dedicated and vociferous environmental activist throughout his career. In recent years he has expressed strong opinions on global warming. He has been a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund a leading environmental pressure group and during his presidency of the Royal Society an attempt was made to disrupt funding to climate sceptics. It would not be reasonable to suppose that Lord May could provide the seminar with either an authoritative or impartial assessment of the current state of the scientific evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

The BBC has done its level best to keep the details of the seminar under wraps. But we know that “30 key BBC staff” attended; that it was hosted by Jana Bennett and Helen Boaden and chaired by Fergal Keane. We also know that the seminar effected a distinct shift in BBC policy, because the BBC admitted as much in its June 2007 report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century.

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

As the Newbery/Bishop report drily notes:

There is abundant evidence that this is not an accurate description of the seminar.

No indeed. But this hasn’t stopped the BBC going ahead as if it were. The report details just a few of the more notable examples of the BBC’s flagrant pursuit of the Warmist political agenda:

(a) Climate Wars was a four part television programme which purported to describe sceptic arguments. It could best be described as a four-part ‘hit piece’, with sceptic arguments caricatured by a confirmed ‘warmist’ presenter and in one case, some serious misrepresentation of widely agreed scientific evidence. Despite this, a member of the BBC Trust has described this programme to one of us as representing coverage that balanced the more normal mainstream coverage of global warming, suggesting that the BBC Trust have been misled about how unbalanced the corporation’s coverage has been. We are unaware of any BBC programme that has allowed sceptics to present their own arguments without being filtered through a ‘green’ presenter or being subject to immediate rebuttal.

(b) David Attenborough’s two part series The Truth about Climate Change was broadcast in May and June 2006 as part of the Climate Chaos season. At no point in the series was there any suggestion that there are scientists, albeit a minority, who do not support the majority view on this subject, or that scientific understanding of the climate system remains very limited with major uncertainties still unresolved. Therefore the use of the term ‘Truth’ in the title of the series suggests an exercise in indoctrination rather than education. No claim could reasonably be made that this series was impartial about the science of climate change, but the DVD of this series is still being offered for sale on the BBC Shop website.

(c) The BBC’s partisan coverage of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was particularly egregious.

When the Summary for Policy Makers of the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) was launched on 2 February 2007, the 10pm News devoted most of the programme to this story. At no point was there any suggestion that anthropogenic C02 emissions may not be entirely responsible for climate change, a claim that the IPCC report did not make. All those interviewed on the subject, as ‘experts’, expressed complete certainty about this.

On the same evening, Newsnight went much further, with an assertion by Susan Watts that scientists were being offered thousands of pounds to challenge the IPCC report, and this claim was reiterated by the presenter, Martha Kearney. This was based on a report that had appeared in The Guardian on the same day. It later emerged that the story had no basis in fact and had probably originated from an environmental advocacy group in the US. The BBC would have discovered this if it checked out the story before using it; an example of very sloppy and inaccurate reporting or worse, a willingness to use a third party report because it appeared to confirm the BBC’s position on climate change. During the programme Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and an authority on the physics of clouds, was introduced as a climate sceptic. He was then shown smoking a cigarette while a voice over explained that he had a lot of contrarian beliefs including on smoking. It is most unusual for anyone to be shown smoking on BBC programmes now and the sequence was clearly intended to discredit his sceptical views on climate change.

(d) It is also worth noting that the BBC website has a dedicated area for environmentalists: The Green Room. Searching its archives papers related to climate change gives the following list of contributors: Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre), Bryony Worthington (from an NGO involved in emissions trading, ‘EU is not doing enough to deliver meaningful cuts’), Chris Smith ‘Climate change is very real’, Sir David King (green activist), Malini Mehra (green NGO), Andrew Simms (‘economic growth cannot continue’), Richard Betts (Met Office), Greig Whitehead (NGO, ‘For millions of people in Africa, climate change is a reality’), Tim Aldred (NGO. World leaders must listen to the people who put them in power and quickly make amends for failing to deliver a binding climate deal’). We have been unable to identify any sceptics invited to contradict mainstream environmentalist views on this site. The Green Room appears to exist only as an outlet for propaganda pieces by environmentalists.

Apologies that this post is so long. And there’s plenty more where this came, not least on the key role played by the BBC’s Chief Guardian of the Warmist Flame Roger Harrabin, which surely deserves a post of its own.

In the meantime, I would appeal to the wisdom and scientific integrity of the geneticist Steve Jones who besides being one of this newspaper’s most distinguished and readable science columnists happens to be chairing the official investigation into bias within BBC’s science covering.

It is to Professor Jones that Newbery and the Bishop have addressed their submission.

They conclude:

It would appear that, through the activities of CMEP [Cambridge Media and Environment Programme – the Harrabin outfit which deserves a blog of its own…] BBC Newsgathering has got very much too close to government, environmental activism, and the climate research community for its reputation for impartiality and accuracy to be preserved with regard to the science of climate change.

I don’t believe any responsible scientist, journalist or indeed human being could read this detailed, thorough report and conclude otherwise. Over to you, Professor Jones. We shall all be awaiting your verdict – in Spring 2011 – with keen interest.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America

5 thoughts on “Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story”

  1. Steve says:17th November 2010 at 2:10 pmWow… what an uneducated idiot! You’d think a journalist would at least understand the value of properly researching a topic instead of regurgitating the crap found smeared across right wing tabloids.
  2. TIM says:18th November 2010 at 1:21 amWow Steve, what an “educated” idiot! You’d think a Steve would at least understand the value of properly posting a response without regurgitating the crap found inside the mind of a delusional left wing’d mind.
  3. Mark says:18th November 2010 at 10:58 pm“Apologies that this post is so long.”

    Why apologise for that? Are you the one responsible for the fact that the average human has the attention span of a gnat? You must be very powerful!

  4. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:17 amJames

    1. The BBC has become what all Depts of Gov’t become: crones.

    2. The BBC achieves what all depts of Gov’t achieve, the exact opposite of what they say they will achieve. In the BBC’s case, they claim to be a “public service” broadcaster but of course they become a Gov’t propaganda broadcaster. They also do not represent the public but the political elite. They also do not fulfill their mandate to be unbiased. They become biased.

    3. Everything Gov’t touches (ie. manages, subsidises/funds etc) turns to crap.

    Only freedom and the free (competitive) market works.

    This is why we need the scum of society that is Gov’t and their monopolistic power structure out of broadcasting, healthcare, education, housing, the money supply, banking and central banking, transport and evrthing else Gov’t touches.

    Freedom & Free Markets: the only mechanisms that work for the progress of humanity

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 11:49 amHey Delingpole, is it open season? You’ve poured hate on wildlife broadcasters/scientists/enviromentalists/World War 2 veterans? Who’s next for you to attack? Dentists? Mother in laws?

Comments are closed.

Climategate: the Fox connection | James Delingpole

October 18, 2010

Wrong Fox - but no harm done, eh?

Wrong Fox – but no harm done, eh?

A strange story in Bishop Hill about Fiona Fox. You may remember she’s the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

She said: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”

Then, amusingly, she dropped two of the BBC’s more shameless eco-activists in the dudu by commenting:

“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.’”

How Rich and Rog must have thanked her for this revelation!

And now she’s in trouble of a different kind. It seems she took part in a practical joke which went horribly wrong, summarised here by the Bishop:

She is also apparently a close friend of Jim Devine, a former Labour MP who is now facing fraud charges over his expense claims. She appears to have got herself involved in a bizarre and rather nasty practical joke involving Devine and his office manager, and which has now led to a substantial damages award against the politician.

Unless it involves Al Gore, masseuses and the phrase “love poodle” I’m not generally that interested in reporting sordid, sorry tales about people’s rackety personal lives – not least because it can’t be long before word leaks out about me last weekend with the hamsters, the dwarves with cocaine bowls balanced on their heads, Jimmy Page and the cast of High School Musical III. (And it’s interesting to note that when Steve McIntyre chose to write it up at ClimateAudit, some of his commenters got frightfully sniffy. “And what, pray does this have to do with statistics or climate science?” some of his more matronly readers wanted to know as they reached for the smelling salts).

Me, I’m much more interested in the Science Media Centre connection and the puzzling question of how Fiona Fox became to become so influential figure in the Climate Change Pseudoscience Alarmism Spin Machine. OK so she’s a former revolutionary Marxist – but so too are her sister Claire, as well as the Spiked Online gang Brendan O’Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi and the rest. And all the latter are ferocious defenders of Enlightenment values, as well as being so sceptical about Global Warming b***ocks generally they make me sound like Geoffrey Lean. Well, almost.

One theory, mooted by one of the Bishop’s sharp-eyed readers, is that she was got at by an organisation called LobbyWatch and bullied in changing tack. But did she really have to go so far the other way as to appoint to her Science Advisory Panel such nakedly partisan figures as (former Government Alarmist-in-Chief) Sir David King, and to her board, such outrageously parti-pris types as Philip Campbell (editor in chief of Nature) and, Lord preserve us, Bob Ward?

“Only connect.” As well as being the epigraph of Howard’s End, this is also the theme of an infinitely superior book coming out soon on the great climate change conspiracy called Watermelons.

Fox, Campbell, King, Ward, Hansen, Gore, Monbiot, Porritt, Connolley….Not without reason do these names crop up again and again in this blog. They may not be sitting round the same table plotting. But they’re all part of the cabal, a surprisingly small cabal, given the vastness of its influence and the almost unimaginable immensity of the bill they are trying to impose on mankind in the name of their religion, Climatism.

Related posts:

  1. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  2. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters

One thought on “Climategate: the Fox connection”

  1. TDK says:18th October 2010 at 10:20 amThere’s a nice quote here you might enjoyFiona Fox’s elder sister is Claire Fox (Moral Maze BBC radio 4). The difference between them is Claire is a AGW skeptic. Here’s Fiona on her sister’s “anti-science views”I get furious with her sometimes. I believe in an evidence-based approach to science, but Claire is more driven by her political passions. I heard her on [Radio 4’s] The Moral Maze saying the “bloody scientists” are exaggerating the risk of bird flu, and that made me very cross. I phoned her from Center Parcs, and within two minutes we’d both slammed the phone down. Then, because we don’t want to stay on bad terms, we e-mailed. I sent her the research, and she came back with her political point. She takes the same stance on climate change: she knows the evidence is there; her point is that the human race is far more resilient than people think.

    You will recall that Bird Flu has didn’t kill the numbers predicted in 2003.

    What does that say about their relative judgements.

Comments are closed.

Dear Geoffrey Lean, Let Me Explain Why We’re So Cross…

My colleague Geoffrey Lean is upset by the vitriol he attracts on the internet. I feel for him. Though I have never met Geoffrey colleagues tells me he’s a delightful fellow who means very well. I’m sure he does and, though our views on AGW are very different, I take no more pleasure in seeing him taken to pieces by Telegraph-reading sceptics than I do from all the charming emails I get from George Monbiot groupies calling me something beginning with “C”. (And it’s shorter than “Climate change denier”).

But there appears to be something Geoffrey doesn’t understand and I’d like to take this opportunity to explain. This misconception is implicit in his headline: “We need to cool this climate row.” What it implies is that somewhere in the AGW debate is a sensible, moderate, middle ground and that if we can only approach this business in the spirit of a sort of Tony-Blair-style Third-Way triangulation, everything can be solved and we can all live happily ever after. No it can’t and we won’t.

Here are the killer paragraphs that betray Geoffrey’s (and not just Geoffrey’s but almost the entire green movement’s) wrong thinking:

The extremes, as so often, have met. The rejectionists and fundamentalists both wanted the Copenhagen climate summit to fail. Both seem at least partly swayed by ideology. For the fundamentalists, global warming should be a serious threat, therefore it must be one. For rejectionists, it must not be happening, therefore it can’t be.

The debate will surely continue. But is there a productive way forward? All sides condemn waste of the world’s resources. Conserving energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with clean sources is important for national security, and reducing other forms of air pollution besides the emission of greenhouse gases. It is also, as more and more economists and entrepreneurs are realising, an effective way of creating jobs and stimulating new, and sustainable, economic growth.

I think such a programme is necessary to head off dangerous climate change. But even if I am wrong, it would make the world a better, more prosperous place. Could all sides back it while continuing to argue about the science? That really would be a shock.

There are so many false assumptions contained therein that I don’t know where to begin. Probably the most dangerous is the canard about “green jobs”. These are a chimera, as we know from the evidence of Spain where for every “green job” created by government subsidy 2.2 jobs have been lost in the real economy. Not that this inconvenient truth seems to concern Dave Cameron’s green Conservatives overmuch.

Certainly the most erroneous is the utter nonsense that the measures being proposed to deal with “climate change” will “make the world a better, more prosperous place.”

No they won’t Geoff, and that’s why so many of us are so angry; why some of the emails you get are filled with such poison. We see, as you apparently do not, that in the name of this AGW scare you and your environmental correspondent colleagues have been helping to cook up these last few years our world is being destroyed.

You rightly cite biofuels as an example of green zealotry gone horribly wrong. If only it were the only one.

But how about the fact that, in the name of preserving the environment, the choicest parts of our magnificent British landscape are going to be ruined for generations by ugly, energy-inefficient, wind farms which are really little more than a means of transferring taxpayers’ money into the pockets of a few canny businessmen and pandering to EU bureaucracy but which will contribute nothing to our “energy security” because their power output is negligible?

How about the fact that thanks to the Climate Act we are expected to commit, in the middle of our direst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an annual £18 billion towards pointless green projects in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t actually exist?

You talk about “the science” Geoffrey, as if this were the place in which the solution lay. Again this is a fallacy. AGW has never been about “the science”, but about the corruption and debasement thereof. Try reading AW “Bishop Hill” Montford’s superb, gripping The Hockey Stick Illusion and then try to tell me, with a straight face, that the IPCC’s scaremongering reports have even the merest shred of integrity or that the cabal of activist scientists who have been pushing AGW  since the mid-Eighties were simply honest disinterested parties on a noble quest for pure scientific truth.

Climategate (which you persist in telling us was of no significance, though on what basis you have never quite made clear), was merely the iceberg tip not only of the greatest scientific scandal in history, but also of perhaps the most far reaching and deadly conspiracy ever inflicted on mankind. One that could ultimately lead to the destruction of the global economy and, by extension, industrial civilisation.

Yet here you are, telling us it can all be resolved if we only start talking a bit more nicely to one another. Well again I say this is not a moment for Tony-Blair-style triangulation. You rightly say that it is quite wrong to liken climate change denial to Holocaust denial. And the reason it’s wrong is because the Holocaust actually happened, whereas nobody is claiming that climate doesn’t change. The bone of contention is whether or not it is significantly, dangerously man-made.

What I don’t buy is the notion that in turn we sceptics should desist from calling the people on your side “eco-fascists” and “Nazis.” Why? The Nazis were the progenitors of the modern green movement and eco-fascism is exactly what organisations like the EU, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the current British government and the forthcoming Heath administration are trying to impose on their increasingly clued-up (and correspondingly sceptical) tax-paying, freedom-loving citizenry.

We love our world; we want our children and grandchildren to grow up with jobs and to be able to enjoy looking at landscapes which haven’t been destroyed by wind turbines; we understand that the richer an economy grows the more environmentally conscious it can afford to be. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your side, Geoffrey, does not.

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  3. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  4. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts

Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team | James Delingpole

Finally the Norfolk rozzers are on the case of Climategate.

Are they investigating fraudulent misuse of grant funds? Misleading manipulation of data by a taxpayer-funded research institute? Conspiracy to encourage the squandering of trillions of dollars on a non-existent problem?

Not according to the researches of the estimable blogger Bishop Hill. This morning he contacted the Norfolk Constabulary to ask them how the case was going: had they yet ascertained whether it was a leak or a hack. His response has just arrived:

Norfolk Constabulary continues its investigations into criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia.  During the enquiry officers have been working in liaison with the Office of the Information Commissioner and with officers from the National Domestic Extremism Team. The UEA continues to co-operate with the enquiry however major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

4 Responses to “Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team”

  1. Tempe Harvey says:January 9, 2010 at 2:26 pmHi James – We heard you in a radio interview broadcast in Brisbane in 2009 – and rushed out and bought “Welcome to Obamaland” – IT’S FANTASTIC !!!!We see you doing a great public service exposing global warming lies. When you have a moment please consider writing something against the socialist agenda to use the tax system in the UK & Australia to redistribute family wealth to the daycare industry. The Australian govt. spends around 2x as much on families that use daycare than parents who actually raise their own children. I have an email from a Swedish public servant confirming that 81.3% of 1-5 year olds there attend daycare. Social problems of institutionalising small children are catastrophic, because daycare kids are more likely to have emotional & behavour problems AND because parents impoverished by daycare taxes are conscipted to paid work & unable to spend time with their teenagers either.Our Australian parent organisation has links with Full Time Mothers UK

    Kind regards,
    Tempe Harvey
    President, Kids First Parent Association of Australia

  2. Atheist Ranter says:January 9, 2010 at 10:41 pmYou need to remember that the police are very busy – just think of all those speeding motorists who need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And fined of course, plus the £15 ‘victim surcharge’ on top – one of the may euphemisms used by the government to collect even more ’stealth tax’.
  3. Patrickdj44 says:January 10, 2010 at 5:35 amSo Delingpole, what’s your point?There are two facts relating to the CRU emails:-
    1/ The emails were stolen, stealing is a criminal act. Or to you does the means justify the cause. If and when you get your 50″ plasma TV and someone steals it will you applaud the thief?
    2/ Irrespective of the few cherry picked and edited emails that were published it has not altered the fact one iota that Global Warming is here and now and is happening, or are you still confused with the difference between climate and weather.
  4. CliveH says:January 15, 2010 at 7:38 pmTwo facts Patrick?I do not think so – the emails were leaked by a researcher fed up with the “Old Guard” spinning the truth and refusing to release the relevant data under legitimate FoI requests.As for Global warming being here – presumably that is why Mann had to hide the decline in his tree ring data post 1960 and use manipulated ground station data. Data that now has less reference points due to many stations being off line in colder areas and so the “Crimatologists” just fill in the missing bits with extrapolated data from adjacent – usually warmer weather stations.

    As for anyone being confused by weather and climate – it has to be you because the only difference is the scale of time frame.

    But then anyone that asks such a question relies on the spin that Climate is when it gets warmer and weather is when it is cold.

    Just except the fact that for years all the hints and glimpses of dodgy doings creating dodgy dossiers – from Saddams WMD’s and the 45 min – to the 20 ft wall of water of Al Go(d)res Inconvenient Truth (TRUTH???????) – it has all imploded on the “census” that was in reality a mutual admiration society of circa 27 people who created their own personal Gravy Train.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)