One Year on from Quitting Paris Accord, Trump ‘Has Broken the Spell of Climate Change Mania’

AP/Thibault Camus

A year on from his bold decision to quit the UN Paris Accord, President Trump has been praised for having “broken the spell of climate change mania.”
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore hails Trump’s exit from Paris as the moment when the “global warmists” lost “the levers of control”.

Since Mr Trump walked out, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”. There was the most tremendous rumpus when he made his announcement, but the End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh-Unless feeling that made headlines before Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and numerous other gatherings, has gone. This feeling was essential to achieve the “Everybody’s doing it, so we must do it” effect the organisers sought.

The media barely noticed the recent Bonn meeting. I doubt if they will get apocalyptic about the next big show, “COP24” in Katowice, Poland, this December. The Poles are among the nations emerging as “climate realists” – people with their own coal and a very strong wish not to depend on the Russians. Climate-change zealotry is looking like CND after the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles in the 1980s – a bit beside the point.

Moore is absolutely right about the symbolic significance of Trump’s decision.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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: time for the tumbrils | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

A mighty outpouring of rage today from Philip Stott, foaming with righteous indignation, on the life and imminent death of the AGW scam.

Part of him is naturally enthralled:

… as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific.

He recognises that this an era of massive geopolitical power shifts:

The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution. The swing of power to the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) had likewise been signified for some time, but, again, it came with precipitate ease, leaving even the American President, Barack Obama, with no doubts as to where the political agenda on climate change was now heading, namely to the developing world, but especially to the East, and to the Pacific Rim. The dirigiste tropes of  ‘Old Europe’, with its love of meaningless targets and carbon capping, will no longer carry weight, while Obama himself has been straitjacketed  by the voters of Massachusetts, by the rust-belt Democrats, by a truculent Congress, by an increasingly-sceptical and disillusioned American public, but, above all, by the financial crisis. Nothing will now be effected that for a single moment curbs economic development, from China to Connecticut, from Africa to Alaska.

But his overwhelming mood is one of white-hot fury at the way so many of his fellow scientists have colluded in this nauseating conspiracy:

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato – never mind just climate science – in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.

I first met Professor Stott a couple of years ago. He’s emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, and I tracked him down because in those days he was pretty much the ONLY senior scientific academic anywhere in Britain brave enough publicly to dispute the AGW ‘consensus.”

We had lunch. “There are many more scientists who think the way I do,” he told me. “But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.” We talked a bit about the loneliness of our position, how impossible it was to place dissenting articles anywhere in the media, how people who thought like us were treated like pariahs.

Now suddenly it has all changed utterly. And you know what? I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like Brown and disgusting Milibands booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick – that’ll be you, David Cameron, you Greg Clark, you Tim Yeo, you John Gummer, to name but four – to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy.

For years I’ve been made to feel a pariah for my views on AGW. Chris Booker has had the same experience, as has Richard North, Benny Peiser, Lord Lawson, Philip Stott and those few others of us who recognised early on that the AGW thing stank. Now it’s payback time and I take small satisfaction from seeing so many rats deserting their sinking ship. I don’t want them on my side. I want to see them in hell, reliving scenes from Hieronymus Bosch.

Yeah, maybe it isn’t the Christian way. But screw ‘em. It’s not as though they haven’t all been screwing us for long enough.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  2. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  3. Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate
  4. Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel


Copenhagen: An Utter Waste of Everyone’s Time, Energy and Money with a Carbon Footprint the Size of Texas

Breaking news: Barack Obama has thrashed out a Copenhagen deal “not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change” which has left no country “entirely satisfied.”

No surprise there, then. Why did they bother?

Related posts:

  1. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  4. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money


Climategate: We Won the Battle, But at Copenhagen We Just Lost the War

Copenhagen has been a disaster for the free world and hardly anyone seems to have noticed.

We have been distracted by the sweet schadenfreude as the event was overshadowed by the Climategate scandal at the beginning, and the Russian bombshell at the end.

And by our delight in seeing the many business interests of the IPCC ’s jet-setting chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri cruelly exposed.

And by the told-you-so satisfaction of seeing it proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the “scientific” process informing the IPCC’s increasingly hysterical reports is corrupt, fraudulent and politically motivated.

And by the irony of the snow beginning to fall on a conference whose ostensible purpose was to prevent global warming.

And by the sheer messy incompetence of the whole affair, with its riots, shambolic organisation and brutality whose victims including Lord Monckton.

But if we think the events of the last fortnight marked a triumph for commonsense over hair shirt green lunacy, we are sadly deluding ourselves. Copenhagen was never about winning or losing a scientific argument. And it wasn’t, as even green campaigners have begun belatedly to realise, about “saving” the environment either.

Here is that Obergruppenfuhrer among eco-freaks Bill McKibben at Mother Jones:

This afternoon at Copenhagen a document mysteriously leaked from the UN Secretariat. It was first reported from the Guardian, and by the time it was posted online it oddly had my name scrawled all across the top—I don’t know why, because I didn’t leak it.

My suspicion, though, is because it confirms something I’ve been writing for weeks. The cuts in emissions that countries are proposing here are nowhere near good enough to meet even their remarkably weak target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. In fact, says the UN in this leaked report, the  cuts on offer now produce a rise of at least three degrees, and a CO2 concentration of at least 550 ppm, not the 350 scientists say we need, or even the weak 450 that the US supposedly supports.

In other words, this entire conference is an elaborate sham, where the organizers have known all along that they’re heading for a very different world than the one they’re supposedly creating. It’s intellectual dishonesty of a very high order, and with very high consequences. And it’s probably come too late to derail the stage management—tomorrow Barack Obama will piously intone that he’s committed to a two degree temperature target. But he isn’t—and now he can’t even say it with a straight face.

Let’s ignore McKibben’s barmy notion that man has it in his power to control global climate by tinkering with CO2 output, and concentrate on that part of his tearful outburst that does make sense. Copenhagen never really had anything to do with “Climate Change”. Rather it was a trough-fest at which all the world’s greediest pigs gathered to gobble up as much of your money and my money as they possibly could, under the righteous-sounding pretence that they were saving the planet.

This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.

Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.”

Richard North has spotted this, even if virtually nobody else has. The key point, he notes, is the Copenhagen negotiators’ little-publicised decision to save the Kyoto Protocol. This matters because it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.

As North says:

This is nothing to do with the headline billions and all the rest. Nope, the deal is that the Kyoto Protocol is saved – which is what all the fuss was really about. That safeguards the carbon market and opens the way for it to expand to the $2-trillion level by the year 2020. Against that, even €100 billion is chump-change – you can buy countries with that sort of money.

Their deal in place, the kleptocrats and the Corporatocracy can go away happy and plan how to spend all their ill-gotten gains, leaving the leaders to grandstand, make their deals, shake hands and strut through their photo-sessions before jetting off in olumes of “carbon” to be greeted as saviours by their underwhelmed peoples.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  2. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  3. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  4. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming | James Delingpole

Climategate just got much, much bigger.

And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  4. Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!

Post navigation

Climategate: Why David Cameron Is Going to Be Disastrous for Britain

Just in case you wondered why the Tories – up against the worst British government in living memory – are still doing so relatively badly in the opinion polls, David Cameron gives all the answers in today’s Guardian.

As far as he’s concerned, Climategate might never have happened. The IPCC is still wholly reliable and uncorrupt. And the 98 per cent of Express readers who believe Britain is being conned over man-made global warming theories are wrong.

He still speaks in facile soundbites which bear absolutely no relation to economic, political or scientific reality:

“The political declaration agreed at Copenhagen must not allow warming to go above 2C, it must include a proper mechanism for funding adaptation for poorest countries, and it has got to have a proper policy to protect rainforests,” Cameron said.

He’s a bully who doesn’t listen to what his party believe in or what the electorate increasingly wants:

“Faced by a mini-revolt from climate change sceptics within his own party, he said: “A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.”

(Oh, and judging by that ‘very small number of people’ line, an arrant liar too)

And this is the man who’s going to be leading our country for the next four years? Sheesh!

Related posts:

  1. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain
  2. David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline
  3. Maybe we’d be better off if David Cameron had gone to Harrow
  4. David Cameron at Oxford University: the truth

Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel

ManBearPig flees!

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Al Gore has had to cancel a Copenhagen speaking event at which he had hoped to charge starry-eyed believers in his ManBearPig religion $1200 a piece for the privilege of shaking his hand, breathing in his CO2 and having his latest book inflicted on them.

Could those unforeseen circumstances have anything to do with Climategate?

I think so. Climategate is now huge. Way, way bigger than the Mainstream Media (MSM) is admitting it is – as Richard North demonstrates in this fascinating analysis. Using what he calls a Tiger Woods Index (TWI), he compares the amount of interest being shown by internet users (as shown by the number of general web pages on Google) and compares it with the number of news reports recorded. The ratio indicates what people are really interested in, as opposed to what the MSM thinks they ought to be interested in.

North explains:

Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the “Tiger Woods Index” (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.

Here are the rankings:

1. Climategate: 28,400,000 – 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 – 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 – 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 – 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 – 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 – 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 – 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 – 4,350 = 29

And lest anyone doubt how big this story is, now Sarah Palin has weighed in. On her Facebook page she urges President Obama to boycott Copenhagen. She totally gets it:

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

She concludes (and if she goes on like this, we really ought to start thinking her of a serious candidate for next president: way to go, Sarah!)

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

Yep. From your mouth to God’s ear, let us hope.

Meanwhile in the libtard-controlled MSM (apparently this is also dating ad code for “Men who have sex with Men” – sorry about that), the BBC is slowly, grudgingly acknowledging that Climategate might be more than just a little local difficulty at some obscure redbrick university department.

On this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme, it gave it a full 12 minutes. Needless to say, it stacked the odds heavily against the one man – climatologist Professor Philip Stott – brave enough to stick up for scientific integrity and rationalism and against Climate Change Hysteria. Not only was the debate sandwiched between reports by two of the BBC’s in-house greens Roger Harrabin and Richard Black trying to play the story down (the Climategate emails offer not a smoking gun but a “confused and half-baked picture” claimed Black), but we then had to put up with presenter John Humphrys ganging up with badger-bottomed climate-fear-promoter the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt against Stott.

“Bit of a coincidence having these glaciers melting when there’s all this extra CO2 in the air,” interrupted Humphrys sarkily, while Stott was trying to make an intelligent point about the AGW industry being an ‘inverted pyramid’ with an awful lot of policy being based on the claims of a very tiny number of scientists.

Yes, Humphrys. Coincidence. NOT CAUSATION.

Finally, my debate with George Monbiot on “Saying the unsayable: is climate scepticism the new Holocaust denial?”. I dunno what others thought – it’ll be up on Youtube at some stage so you can decide for yourselves – but I’d say it was a draw. Neither of us was at all interested in taking  it ad hominem (I didn’t use the word ‘Moonbat’ once) and the gently donnish George didn’t try to make out that I was an evil fascist. Indeed, if he weren’t so utterly inexcusably wrong about pretty much everything I think I’d rather like the dear chap. The audience was split 50/50 between sceptics and deep greens (very few in the middle), so I doubt either of us said anything that would have shaken anyone’s unshakable position.

What was abundantly clear is that despite his apology soon after the scandal broke

‘I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.’

and despite his initial shocked admission that

“The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging,”

Monbiot’s position on Climategate is now rapidly returning to the status quo ante. During the debate he kept stressing how very few scientists were implicated (”three or four”, he said) and how while, of course, scientific integrity is terribly important the vast majority of evidence is still behind AGW and the scientists suggesting otherwise are a bunch of fruitcakes whom we can safely ignore.

Expect to see a lot more of this happening. The Saudis may claim that Climategate is going to derail Copenhagen; the IPCC may just have announced it is launching an official whitewash – “inquiry” – into the affair; we sceptics may point till we’re blue in the face that Climategate is a game-changer because the implicated self-selecting, parti-pris cabal of data-raping scientists are at the very heart of the so-called consensus.

But still the AGW wagon train will trundle on, regardless. And true believers like Monbiot and Porritt will be defending it to their dying breath.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate 2.0
  2. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process
  3. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  4. Climategate: the inaugural Al Gore prize poetry competition

One Response to “Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel”

  1. Duncan says:December 8, 2009 at 9:05 pmAnother interesting thing is that Googles predictive typing thing doesn’t have climategate or climate gate. You have to type the entire thing – surely this has been done deliberately as the term is obviously searched enough to make it into their database. Try it for yourself.

Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas | James Delingpole

Copenhagen Grinches hard at work

First they try to steal $45 trillion of our hard-earned cash in the name of “combatting climate change”. Now they  steal our holidays too: the organisers of the Copenhagen Summit – COP 15 to use its snappy official name – have banned Christmas. (hat tip: EW)

Here’s Copenhagen Post Online:
Participants in the COP15 climate summit should not be subject to Christmas symbols such as fir trees, says the foreign ministry

Although the COP15 climate conference is set to take place during the Christmas season, the Foreign Ministry believes the holiday and all its symbols should be kept well clear of the summit.

That point was bluntly illustrated when a sponsorship providing numerous Nordmann fir trees for the conference was rejected by the ministry, according to public broadcaster DR.

The trees – the most common species used as Christmas trees in Denmark – were intended to be placed as decorations for the entrance of Bella Center, where the conference is taking place.

But Christmas is a religious holiday that has no place at a United Nations function, according to the Foreign Ministry’s Svend Olling, who is the head of practical planning for the climate summit.

‘We have to remember that this is a UN conference and, as the centre then becomes UN territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the UN wishes to maintain neutrality,’ said Olling.

Related posts:

  1. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  2. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  3. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  4. Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?


Climategate: The Conservative backlash begins

Conservative leader David Cameron has issued a statement reiterating his party’s commitment to “tackling carbon emissions” to deal with the “real danger of climate change” and describing the Copenhagen summit as of “historic importance.”

(Hat Tip: my splendid new friend Plato Says)

And the party faithful don’t like Cameron’s Copenhagen Kool-Aid Consumption one tiny bit.

Here’s what Cameron has to say on the Tory party’s Blue Blog:

In nine days time, representatives from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Conference on climate change. This summit is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change.

So this week, ahead of the summit, members of my Shadow Cabinet have given a series of speeches setting out plans to help protect the global environment. Each one of these speeches sets out specific steps which need to be taken if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions.

And here are some of the 200 plus, almost unanimously negative comments from disgusted (and soon-to-be-former-) Tory voters so far:

Please do not support the global warming quacks in my name. They are a bunch of frauds and thieves.

When are you going to accept that Climate Change is not man made? All the unmassaged facts indicate this.
You and all the other “green brigade” go swaning off to these conferences spreading an enormous carbon footprint for what? You should not rely on my vote in the coming election unless you are honest.

How intelligent men can really believe all this drivel beats me..By the way are we or the EU responsible for capping all the VOLCANOES scattered around the world???? Get a life people.

When will the Conservative Party comment on what is now called ‘ClimateGate’ ? The science behind this whole issue is looking more and more like a massive scam!

How big is the entourage that is going with David and I bet the carbon footprint made on this one trip is more than I make in twenty years.? Why dont they just phone each other or use a network….is it because they enjoy the pomp and ego boost? What a waste of money, david you should be ashamed!

not interested in green stuff more interested in getting rid of all the rules and regs labour brought in licences fines house . sort that and you may get votes otherwise forget it

Dear Mr Blair (sorry, Cameron)
Why don’t you listen to the actual SCIENTISTS? And not the scaremongerors? Anyone who has even a vague knowledge of science will understand that, in medieval times, the world was a lot hotter than it is now: granted, colder winters, but they had much hotter summers. This is part of the earth’s cycle: read a bit more, think, and don’t believe everyone – take a balanced view. Global warming/cooling is part of the earth’s physicality. Let us not forget that man, as we know him, on a 24-hour clock appeared about 2 minutes before midnight! The earth’s warming/cooling has been going on long before we were around.

Britain’s been sold to the Belgiums and we are supposed to be worried about climate change? We want our own elected government to govern our country

I also am a scientist and agree with the views expressed above that climate change linked to man made CO2 is at best “not proven” and at worst is a fable of equal staus to the Emperor’s New Clothes. David could provide real leadership by not supporting the green inquisition and becoming the man that led us out of this nonsense. The climate change lobby is attractive because it appeals to a concept of original sin (man polluting the planet an bringing about his own downfall) and fear of dependence on oil (which will one day, but not soon, run ou)t. The long term answer to go with sensible energy strategy is of course fewer people. We should be aiming to get the UK population back to 50 million in the next 30 years and maybe less after that.
Conservatives should not fall for the man induced climate change confidence trick. Most oif its remedies are against conservative instincts (more taxes, state interference etc.

As a lowly ex meteorologist I have in my retirement looked at global temperatures:-
Easy enough to do. Doesn’t require much effort at all and I notice It’s been gettting colder for the past decade.
The terminology has changed too – from ‘Man made global warming’ to ‘global warming’ and now ‘climate change’ Whereas I thought that I was the only one (not in receipt of a large research grant) who thought that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes I now suspect that he is now putting on his underwear.

That’s the bad news, Dave. But the good news is you have the support of one Ross J Warren who argues:

Perhaps we might consider making climate change denial a criminal matter

Mm. He sounds just the kind of sensible, reasonable fellow you want onside.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  2. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  3. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  4. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas

7 Responses to “Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins”

  1. Chris says:November 29, 2009 at 11:42 amI never thought the phrase ‘political science’ would be stood on its head as abruptly as it has here. This recipe is 99 parts politics to one part science. And, to those who love the term, we have ‘consensus’ on that.
  2. Burke Hamblin says:November 29, 2009 at 9:25 pmMr. Delingpole, thank you for your tenaciousness in covering this issue; it’s all but an informational wasteland here in the States, save for those who’re tweeting and e-mailing others about “Climategate.” Our “climate czar” Carole Browner has today rejected any implications of the scandal by repeating the rote consensus line, but I and others I know are forwarding links to your blog, Twitter account and articles to everyone we know, regardless of their political leaning. Carry on!
  3. Hugh Janus says:November 29, 2009 at 11:51 pmJames you are up against one massive machine which really does want to silence you and others who share the same view. Unfortunately this is skynew’s weathergirls take on the subject. Read and weep and consider jumping off Earth because life is going to get a whole lot worse. Link below.

  4. Nick Mabbs says:November 30, 2009 at 4:35 pmJames,

    It looks like Dave, Gordon and all the other lefties are going to ignore the e-mails, and the computer code recently ‘liberated’ from the CRU.
    Lord Monckton seems to be lining up a legal challenge if his interviews on the interweb are anything to go by. He wants Gore downwards to go to jail and for the disbandment of the the IPCC and the UN on ‘crimes against humanity’ grounds.

    Unfortunately he also advocated a new worldwide political party (the Freedom Party).
    Readers may remember the name being associated with the ‘National Front’ before it became
    the BNP – it is particularly disturbing therefore that Nick Griffin is going to bring up Climategate at

    Someone stop him before the whole Climategate business gets kicked into the long grass
    as being the rantings of a loony; rather than the world changing subject it is !

    Right now we need James Bond not Daffy Duck.

  5. Steve says:November 30, 2009 at 4:41 pmI am not a scientist, and I know very little about the science required to understand the debate. Therefore I read articles on what could be the most significant issue of our age so as to be informed by others who know what their talking about.

    One thing for certain is that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that AGW is real. That does not make it so, only that they believe it to be.

    The problem I have with the argument against AGW is that I’m expected to believe that some vast conspiracy exists amongst scientists. In all honesty it sounds as ridiculous as “9/11 was an inside job”. And far more worrying.

    I have read quite a few of your articles on the subject and the only thing I can determine is that you truly despise those who would believe in AGW. the insults you have levelled at those you disagree with are of the Daily Mail variety, or Fox News opinion pieces. I assume that in the majority of your articles you are doing no more than preaching to the quire, filling them with vitriolic terminology to level at those they disagree with. So it is sad to say that another “opinion” on the debate is rendered useless to me.

    And that is the main problem, I am no firm believer in man made climate change although from my own experience it is plausible that our climate is indeed changing. That I cannot find decent sceptical argument without insult is worrying.

  6. Fiona says:December 1, 2009 at 10:27 pmThere is hope. In Australia, we have booted out a “warmist” from the leadership of the Opposition and put a realist in charge. You need to pressure your party from the grassroots like we did. Email them, phone them, tell them you’ll never vote for them again.
  7. PaulM says:December 1, 2009 at 10:48 pmDecember 1st 2009 will go down in the history of the Australian Parliment as the day the conservative side of politics rediscovered its’ spine. On this day a Leadership Spill was called of the Opposition.

    Running were, Malcolm Turnbull, the current Leader of the Opposition, Joe Hockey, the “Unity” candidate (a believer in AGW and the favoured pick of the media & the ALP) and Tony Abbot, Prime Minister Howards head kicker and whilst a believer in Climate Change, a skeptic to the level & importance of mankinds contribution.

    The distress, the outrage, the hand wring, hair pulling & banshee screams that have followed the elevation of the “Mad Monk” Tony Abbot to the Leadership of the Lib/Nat coalition was most edifying to behold.

    Today 2-Dec-2009 will be a great day in Australia as we see the opposition vote down for the second time, Prime Minister Rudds Emissions Trading Scheme (or Extra Tax System/Employment Termination Scheme) in the Australian Senate. All this was achieved by the great work of Andrew Bolt (columnist for the Herald Sun in Melbourne), Piers Ackerman (columnist for The Sydney Daily Telegraph), Alan Jones (Radio commentator for 2UE Sydney), the great folks from WhatsUpWithThat and the thousands of everyday Australians who informed their elected representatives of their concerns & their WILL.

    Democracy does occasionaly work, but it takes the actions of the electorate to make it happen.

    Stand up & say NO. NO to the International Carbon Futures Cabal headed by Al Gore and the likes of HSBC, ABN AMRO & Goldman Sachs. NO to COP15. NO to the unelected & unrepresentative swill of the UN.