Theresa May Could Create Jobs, Slash Bills and Boost Our Post-Brexit Economy If She Gets Fracking

IMAGINE if our new Prime Minister Theresa May could wave her wand and achieve the following miracles within five years.

Create 500,000 new jobs, slash our electricity bills, restore British manufacturing, boost our economy, make us richer and stop our energy supplies being held to ransom by Putin, the Arabs, the French and other foreign regimes.

Fracking has the potential create jobs and boost Britain’s economy after Brexit

Well, the good news is she can, right now, and doesn’t need magic to do it.

All she needs to do is get fracking — the marvellous technology that extracts shale gas and oil from the ground.

Fracking has worked wonders for the US economy and could do the same for ours.

Shale gas is just as valuable and useful as the natural gas we’ve been harvesting from the North Sea for decades.

The only difference is that, because it’s mixed up with rock sediment, it used to be impossible to recover.

Read the rest at the Sun.

UK Legal Professor to Climate Activists: Breaking the Law is OK

So recommends Tara Smith, a lecturer in law at the University of Bangor, Wales, in an article for the Conversation, a website popular with academics.

In a section titled “Playing by the rules isn’t working”, she says:

While necessity is difficult to assert in climate activism trials, the Delta 5 and Greenpeace cases raise a big question: should activists be allowed to take matters into their own hands to prevent global warming and climate change? Given underwhelming results in combating this at the international level to date, arguably they should.

Warming to her revolutionary theme she goes on:

The Paris climate change agreement in December was celebrated as a major achievement in bringing all states together, developed and developing alike, to agree on a common plan to reduce global carbon emissions. However, on closer inspection, it doesn’t seem to be ambitious enough to work as expected. Warming will be limited to 2.7°C, at best, while the agreement isn’t yet legally-binding. Climate change is still likely to have severe effects.

If states are unwilling or unable to sufficiently reduce their carbon emissions in time to make a real difference, shouldn’t people around the world be encouraged to take robust action without fear of being thrown in jail for their efforts to do good?

There is precedent for this, argues Smith, who compares to the situation to disobeying orders in Nazi Germany to transport Jews to concentration camp.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore: Skeptics Are the New ‘Thin Green Line’

No, not the Green McJob (TM) creation scheme being hosted by the United Nations at Le Bourget for the benefit of 40,000 troughers, kleptocrats, island nation guilt trippers, activists, bureaucrats, apparatchiks, junk-scientists, one world government freaks, environmental lawyers, corporate rent-seekers, teat-suckers and other assorted eco-fascist protozoa.

Rather, I mean the Paris Climate Challenge, a tiny three-day event being hosted in the centre of town by retired Church of England vicar Philip Foster and a tall blogger called Roger ‘Tallbloke’ for a ragtag group of – at best – 40 climate skeptics.

I was tempted to take a photo of them for this article. But I decided it would play right into the enemy’s hands.

Empty chairs and mostly grey-haired men with wild eyes and a mad-professor demeanour: it would have confirmed everything the greenies like to claim about climate “deniers” – that they’re old to the point of being senile, eccentric to the point of insanity and so out of touch with reality that no one wants to hear what they want to say anyway.

And you know what? If I were in the unfortunate position of having no scientific arguments left to support my case that’s exactly the kind of sad and desperate smear job I’d resort to as well.

Probably, I’d add that “deniers” smell of wee-wee (or poo-poo, if I really wanted to drive the point home); and, if at all possible, I’d try to follow the example of luminaries like President Obama, Bernie Sanders and the Prince of Wales and hint gently that these disgusting people were also kinda, sorta responsible for the Paris massacre and the San Bernardino massacre because by denying the reality of man-made global warming they helped cause the alleged “drought” in the Middle East which drove thousands of law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims straight into the arms of Islamic State.

Luckily for me, though, I’m not in that unfortunate position. Rather I’m on the side of the argument which has pretty much everything going for it: the science, the economics, the moral high ground, the intellectual credibility, the wit, charm and tell-it-like-it-is fearlessness…

But, yes, most of all what we have on my side of the argument are the facts.

There were lots of these at the Paris Climate Challenge conference – the kind of hard, verifiable scientific ones which simply weren’t available to the people up the road at the COP21 event.

Facts like:

The lack of observational evidence for “man-made” global warming

The 19-year “pause” in global warming which none of the alarmists’ models predicted.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

China Shows How Much It Cares about Climate Change: With a Single, Upraised Finger

According to shock data  released, without fanfare, by China’s statistical agency, its coal use has been about 17 per cent higher per year than earlier official figures admitted. This may have pumped an extra billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere – more than the total greenhouse gas output of the entire German economy.

In 2012, China burned through an extra 600 million tons of coal: about 70 per cent of the amount used annually by the US.

The new figures make a nonsense of China’s publicly-expressed commitment to wage war on climate change.

Only two days ago, Chinese president Xi Jinping emerged from a summit with French president Francois Hollande, calling for “an ambitious and legally binding deal” at the forthcoming COP21 climate talks being staged by the UN in Paris later this month.

This moved Greenpeace China’s Li Shuo to declare it “encouraging to see the ball rolling and diplomacy nudging us a small step forward”. He added:

“Moreover, with the recent decline in coal consumption and robust renewable energy development, China is positioning itself at the front of climate leadership. This is drastically different from six years ago in Copenhagen.”

We now know that this was wishful thinking.

Not that we couldn’t have guessed this anyway. China’s policy on CO2 emissions is – and always has been – a case of “tell the gullible Gwailo whatever they want to hear – then carry on building coal-fired power stations regardless.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Free the Greenpeace 30!

(And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)

The Arctic Warrior: a fine marine reserve in the making (photo: Greenpeace)

Like most caring, nurturing souls who believe in a cleaner, better, happier world I’m keen for the 30 Greenpeace activists currently being held on piracy charges by the Russians to be released from prison as soon as possible. If you saw last Thursday’s coverage of the issue on BBC Newsnight, you might understand why.

It featured an interview with Paul Simonon, formerly guitarist with the Clash, about his experiences in 2011 when – after getting involved in a similar Arctic rig protest with Greenpeace – he found himself arrested by the Norwegians. The way Emily Maitlis’s brow furrowed sympathetically during the interview, you’d think he’d been banged up for a year in the punishment block of Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, not held for a day or two in a cell in Greenland. Little was left to the imagination as to where the programme’s sympathies lay; nor, perhaps, would one expect otherwise from a programme now edited by an ex-Guardian man Ian Katz.

Simonon’s heartbreakingly moving account of celebrity suffering nicely set the tone for the subsequent studio non-debate between Greenpeace’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and a Russian journalist. Naidoo was given carte blanche to chant the green mantra: “Scientists have told us we are heading for catastrophic climate change”…”children and grandchildren’s lives at risk”…”addicted to oil” etc. Not one of these extravagant claims was challenged by Maitlis. (To be fair, she probably wasn’t sufficiently well informed to question or contradict them – and in any case had she tried to do so she would have been in breach of the BBC’s semi-official policy to big up the great climate change threat at every opportunity.)

Maitlis did at least question Naidoo on the wisdom of sending RIBs full of Greenpeace activists against an installation as high security (and vulnerable to terrorism) as an oil platform owned by the Russians. Naidoo described Greenpeace’s action as “responsible and proportionate” – apparently because the threat posed to the world by ‘climate change’ is so grave that no action to raise awareness of it could possibly be deemed irresponsible and disproportionate. (Though as Pierre Gosselin notes at No Tricks Zone, he appears to be developing a more emollient line now that he knows that Russia means business and that any more goading and grandstanding from their mouthy executive director could cost the Greenpeace 30 rather longer in the slammer than they’d anticipated).

My sympathies in this regard are mostly with the Russians. (As are Dominic Lawson’s in this excellent piece here) They’re being painted by the BBC as the bad guys for over-reacting by imprisoning supposedly harmless, peace-loving activists as “pirates.” But how, exactly, is a country meant to react when one of its most vital industries is threatened with economic sabotage? Russia – unfortunately for the Greenpeace 30 – has yet to fall prey to the kind of intellectual decadence which now afflicts much of the West on green issues. In Europe, for example, our industry has a longstanding tradition of caving to Greenpeace’s every bullying demand – as we saw when Shell gave in over Brent Spar. And even on those rare occasions when industry stands up to it – as Kingsnorth Power Station did when it sued Greenpeace for the £30,000 of damage carried out by its protestors – Greenpeace can not only afford the best legal teams you can buy when you’re a multi-national organisation with annual global revenues of £196 million but can also rely on a sympathetic hearing from juries which have been brainwashed from childhood by a farrago of Greenpeace lies, half-truths, junk-science factoids and emotive propagandising.

I understand perfectly why the Russians wish to teach Greenpeace a lesson so hard that hereafter it will concentrate its anti-capitalist activities against countries of a more surrender-monkey persuasion. But if they really want to hit back at Greenpeace they should do so where it really hurts – financially – rather than handing it an unnecessary propaganda coup in which, day after day, the likes of Kumi Naidoo and his celebrity mates Damon Albarn, Jude Law and Paul from the Clash are able to go on presenting a bunch of hard-Left activists hell bent on destroying industrial civilisation as lovable, heroic martyrs.

If they’re feeling generous, the Russians could impound the Greenpeace boat Arctic Sunrise until Greenpeace pays them a swingeing fine. If they’re feeling a bit more hard core, they could take a leaf out of the French’s book and sink it.

Personally I’d favour the second option – purely on environmental grounds, of course. As we learnt from the disposal of the Brent Spar and also of the Rainbow Warrior, a sunken boat or a sunken oil platform do quickly make a truly excellent marine habitat.

Related posts:

  1. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  2. Greenpeace goes postal
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Free the Greenpeace 30! (And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)”

  1. Uncle Bobby says:17th October 2013 at 10:00 pmI love the smell of victory in the afternoon:

    “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and
    political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party
    members know more science than non-tea partiers.”

    Dig deeper into the article, and it appears that the RINOs are weighing the conservative movement down enough to the point where the liberals have the slight edge in scientific literacy.

    Still, I think it’s high time for a gloat.

    Let it be known that real conservatives are at the head of the class.

Comments are closed.

Greenpeace and the Guardian: Yet Again, Sticking up for the Bad Guys

Single issue

Not quite the scoop it pretended to be

When is a scandal not a scandal? When it comes via Greenpeace and is splashed over the front page of The Guardian, I’d say.

While obviously I’m delighted that The Guardian and Greenpeace think I’m so powerful that I have the ability to effect a 180 degree shift in government onshore wind policy just by the mere threat of standing in a by-election, I do think a little examination of news priorities might be in order here.

In an op-ed for tomorrow’s Daily Telegraph (which will probably appear online later this evening), I explain – not for the first time: but hey repetition is always useful if you want to get your idea across – why it was that I chose to stand in Corby as the anti-wind farm candidate. It’s because I honestly believe that the Great Wind Energy Scam is by far the greatest scandal of our age. As I’ve argued time and again,  in articles like this, this, this, and this, the wind industry is a very expensive solution to a non-existent problem. It makes no sense economically, ecologically, politically or environmentally. It kills wildlife, needlessly drives up energy prices, causes fuel poverty, blights property values, creates Low Frequency Noise which makes people ill, ruins the landscape and enriches the already rich at the expense of the poor. It even increases carbon emissions.

The only reason the industry exists at all is because of the vast sums of money made available to it through hidden tariffs consumers are forced to pay on their energy bills. Greedy rich landowners and even more rapacious corporations (most of them foreign-owned) are making a fortune at the expense of ordinary people by making a useless, environmentally-unfriendly product – unreliable, intermittent energy – which would be worthless in a free market and which causes enormous misery and damage to humans, to wildlife, to the landscape and the economy.

This oughtn’t to be a party political issue. It ought to be a scandal that concerns everyone, even Guardian readers, even Greenpeace members, so why instead of investigating it are they using their considerable influence and their vast resources to try to keep this evil scam going?

Perhaps they’ve bought into the myth that wind energy is clean and green. That’s certainly what wind industry propagandists like RenewableUK would tell you. But it only takes an hour or so’s reading to find more than enough hard evidence to dispense with these beautiful lies. This is what troubles me about the Greenpeace and the Guardian line on this subject: are they really so bound by ideology that they never want to expose themselves to the truth? Why are they so determinedly sticking up for the bad guys?

If my on-off role in the Corby by election was responsible even slightly for helping spare one or two communities in rural Britain the misery of having wind farms plonked on their doorstep, then I would consider it a cause for pride rather than embarrassment. And if it made no difference whatsoever, well I’m happy with that too, because I didn’t lose my deposit, I didn’t take votes from my friends at UKIP and I met lots of nice people on the way including that rather hot yummy mummy whose baby I kissed.

It’s not as though there aren’t more than enough real scandals to concern ourselves with right now. This one for example.

Related posts:

  1. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  2. Murdoch, Hackgate, Climategate, the Guardian and the vile hypocrisy of the Left
  3. Greenpeace’s forest policy is unsustainable
  4. Greenpeace goes postal


Why Isn’t Lord Lawson Dead Yet?

The Motive Fallacy

Lord Lawson: not dead, despite the wishes of internet trolls

Lord Lawson: not dead, despite the fond wishes of internet trolls

This isn’t me asking, you understand. I’m merely repeating a question someone posted on the internet after Lord Lawson had the temerity to appear on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme speaking out in defence of shale gas in a debate with Friends of the Earth’s Tony Juniper. (H/T Bishop Hill)

Did anyone on Lawson’s side of the debate post similar messages earnestly hoping that Juniper choked on his organic tofu? Or demanding that Friends Of The Earth have its charity status withdrawn because it’s quite clearly a viciously misanthropic, anti-capitalist political organisation funded by deep-green ecoloons who given half the chance would have us all living in Maoist peasant collectives while they busily bombed our economy back to the dark ages? I doubt it somehow. Climate realists tend to be far too busy being nice and reasonable and balanced – as Lord Lawson always takes pains to do – to adopt the Alinsky-ite smear tactics adopted by their opponents.

I’m sure Lord Lawson can take consolation from the words of his old boss Margaret Thatcher: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Never were these words truer than in the case of the climate change debate. The alarmists simply haven’t got a leg to stand on, so the best they can do to shore up the ruins of their collapsing cause is to engage in ad homs, appeals to authority and utterly dishonest campaigns like the current Guardian-encouraged witch-hunt to try to force the Global Warming Policy Foundation to reveal its sources of funding.

Why is the campaign so utterly dishonest? First, it succumbs to what Jamie Whyte calls the Motive Fallacy: the demonstrably false notion that if you have an interest (financial or otherwise) in holding an opinion it must perforce be untrue. Whyte gives one example: “A man may stand to gain a great deal of peace and quiet from telling his wife that he loves her. But he may really love her nonetheless.”

But even better answer comes from this brilliant analysis by Ben Pile at Spiked Online!, who notes the outrageous hypocrisy of the greenies’ harassing of the GWPF when its funding – relative to the amount spent on green propaganda – is so minuscule.

Even the £500,000 that the GWPF received from donors in its first year of operations fades into insignificance when put in perspective.

For example, it would take the combined resources of 25 GWPFs to produce an equivalent of the UK government’s extraordinarily patronising Act on CO2 campaign. The Committee on Climate Change spends more than eight times that much each year on its own operations. In 2010, the quasi-independent Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust received government grants worth £156million and £70million respectively. That’s a total of 452 times as much public money as the GWPF took from donors. The billionaire Jeremy Grantham – who has around $1.5 billion worth of stock in oil companies – is the benefactor of the influential Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change, headed by Lord Nicholas Stern, who wrote The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and WWF enjoy gifts of millions of pounds from the UK and EU governments. And the EU funds associations of renewable energy companies to lobby politicians to the tune of millions of euros per year.

It would be an astronomical understatement to say that the environmental activists banging on about the GWPF lack a sense of proportion and have incredible double standards. The GWPF’s resources are far less than even a thousandth of what is available to the government for research and PR – through its departments, the quangos and NGOs that are recruited into its green agenda, and firms and other associations that will profit by it. And yet this tiny operation has seemingly achieved such reach, to punch far above its weight, against the collective force of all the above.

But perhaps the best reason of all why the GWPF should never have to name its donors is this one, as advanced by Bishop Hill on Twitter:

Greenpeace spokesman: ” We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”. Why would GWPF donors want their names public?

Why indeed.

Related posts:

  1. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  2. What Lord Tebbit says: a bit more right-wingness will do Cameron no harm at all
  3. Freedom of speech is dead in Australia
  4. Opiate for the masses

One thought on “Why isn’t Lord Lawson dead yet?”

  1. Anonymous says:6th February 2012 at 3:39 amLike WWF, FoE is part-funded by the European Commission – which explains a lot

Comments are closed.

Greenpeace’s Forest Policy Is Unsustainable

Here is a guest post from one of my environmental heroes, Patrick Moore. The reason he’s an environmental hero is because, unlike so many campaigners in the green movement, he doesn’t believe that in order to save the world its necessary to destroy Western industrial civilisation.

I highly recommend his superb book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout which describes how he lost his faith in the organisation he co-founded:

Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement have adopted policy after policy that reflects their antihuman bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment. They oppose forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource. They have zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition. They continue to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They campaign against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity. And they support the vicious and misguided campaign against salmon farming, an industry that produces more than a million tons of heart-friendly food every year.”

Patrick’s guest post begins here:

Imagine a situation in which an activist group with certain political ambitions and close ties to a computer manufacturer engaged in a campaign of threats against specific UK retailers.

Targeted retailers were told that they must buy computers from only a select manufacturer (the one closely associated with the activist group) and no other, to the detriment of the retailer, market competition, and consumers at large. If retailers dared to purchase from any other computer manufacturer, the activist group would continue a campaign to spread misinformation, harass and embarrass the retailer, and sully its name brand. If this fictional scenario were made real, it would likely be cause for an investigation. In the world of organized crime, this type of strategy has a name: racketeering.

And yet when my former colleagues at Greenpeace employ a similar strategy to target Indonesian forest product producers (albeit without the threat of violence often associated with racketeering) they’re hailed as leaders by their fellow environmental activists.

Greenpeace is threatening name-brand retailers and manufacturers who do not agree to a Greenpeace-backed wood fiber and paper policy that gives preference to one particular forest certifier, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), over all other forest certification bodies.

For Greenpeace, it doesn’t matter that other forest certifiers enforce rigorous forest certification standards that either match or exceed those of the FSC. It doesn’t matter, my old group says, that Indonesian forest product producers adhere to strict environmental and social standards and provide enormous benefits to local and often poor people in the areas where producers operate.

It doesn’t matter that leading Indonesian forest product producers are aggressively certifying plantation forests through a range of independent, third-party standards including Indonesia’s rigorous national standard, Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (LEI).
Instead, what matters to Greenpeace is its close association with the FSC. Greenpeace was instrumental in the FSC’s founding and maintains, along with its fellow environmental activists, tight political control over the organization. It follows that Greenpeace wishes to see only the FSC thrive and all other certification standards perish.

No other forest certifier has the advantage of Greenpeace support. Not only does Greenpeace promote the FSC. Greenpeace actively threatens any retailer or manufacturer that decides to purchase wood and paper products certified using other, equally rigorous forest certification standards.

Greenpeace is essentially attempting to create a monopoly for the FSC in Asia by using a strategy of threats and intimidation.

It won’t work.

Greenpeace tried a similar strategy in North America, pushing home improvement retailers, home builders, and other wood and paper product purchasers to buy only FSC-labeled product. But home improvement retailers and home builders eventually realized they could provide better value to their customers while still ensuring sustainable forest practices by giving preference to a range of forest certification standards. Having failed to secure an FSC monopoly in North America, Greenpeace is now attempting to do so in Asia, with a particular focus on Indonesia.

The real tragedy is that for the sake of a forest certification label and in the name of monopoly, Greenpeace is ignoring the true causes of forest destruction in Indonesia: unsustainable agricultural practices, illegal forest encroachment, and illegal logging and poaching.

Targeting Indonesia’s legal and sustainable forest sector will do nothing to prevent forest destruction in the country and will likely only exacerbate deforestation. And promoting an FSC monopoly will limit consumer choice and market competition while having no impact on forest sustainability.

It’s time for Greenpeace to end this wrong-headed, damaging approach.

Related posts:

  1. Is Policy Exchange the most loathsome think tank in Britain?
  2. If this is Britain’s energy policy, we’re toast
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Shock US Senate report: left wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ using green groups to subvert democracy, control the economy


Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada? | James Delingpole

June 19, 2011

For once my sympathy is all with the whalers...

For once my sympathy is all with the whalers…

And how are you feeling today, all you Greenies, after your most embarrassing week (well, one of the most embarrassing: the competition, it must be said, has been pretty stiff these last 18 months) since Climategate?

Just in case your only information sources are RealClimate or Guardian Environment let me explain, briefly, what has been happening out here on Planet Reality. In a nutshell, you’ve been caught with your trousers down yet again, viz:

An official IPCC report bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based not on solid science but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by, you guessed it, Greenpeace.

Here’s how the press release of the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reported its findings:

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

This was uncritically reported by its amen corner in the MSM, led of course by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian. But others more diligent smelt a rat – among them the mighty Steve McIntyre whose magisterially contemptuous blogpost on the subject has been keeping climate sceptics such as Bishop Hill, WUWT, Rex Murphy, Ronald Bailey and Mark Lynas busy all week.

Mark Lynas? Not the same eco activist Mark Lynas who once threw a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and was responsible for advising the Maldives cabinet to pose for that nauseatingly disingenuous publicity shot where they’re all under water (because, like, the Maldives are being drowned due to global warming: except, of course they’re not)? Yep, that one. But on this occasion, at least, even as committed an eco zealot as he has been forced to concede that IPCC has done its reputation as the “gold standard” (copyright: B Obama) of international climate science few favours:

The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.

Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008.

It is a good point well made. Putting a guy from Greenpeace in charge of writing the supposedly neutral, scientifically-based report on which governments are going to base their energy policy is like putting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in charge of a report entitled Whither Israel? It is, in fact, yet another scandal of Climategate proportions. But you’d be amazed how many people there are out there who still don’t quite see the broader significance of this.

Here, for example, is the characteristically wet response from the Economist’s Babbage:

THE release of the full text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy this week has led to a new set of questions about the panel’s attitudes, probity and reliability: is it simply a sounding board for green activists? The answer is no—but that doesn’t mean it’s without serious problems.

Er, no, actually, Babbage. The answer is “yes.” Since its very foundation, the IPCC has been a sounding board for green activists. That is indeed its purpose. It has no remit to investigate whether or not climate change is significantly man-made and whether this constitutes a threat serious enough to handicap the global economy with massive tax and regulation because it takes all those as givens: as far as the IPCC’s concerned, the debate is over and the time to act is now. (Which, funnily enough, is exactly what green activists think). This was the point of McKitrick and McIntyre’s brilliant demolition of the Hockey Stick; the point of Climategate; the point of Amazongate, Glaciergate, Africagate et al; the point of Donna Laframboise’s superb research showing how much “grey literature” (ie activist propaganda with no solid scientific basis) from activist groups like WWF and Greenpeace has informed the IPCC’s supposedly state-of-the-art assessment reports.

The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to “care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by schoolteachers, college lecturers, organic muesli packets, Walkers crisps, the BBC, CNBC, Al Gore, the Prince Of Wales, David Suzuki, the British Antarctic Survey, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Knut – the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.

And you really don’t need to be a contrarian or an out-there conspiracy theorist or a hard-core libertarian or a rampant free-market capitalist or a dyed in the wool conservative to think this way any more. This is reality. This is how it is. This is where all the overwhelming evidence points. So what kind of a bizarro, warped, intellectually challenged, cognitively dissonant, eco-fascistic nutcase would you have to be to think otherwise?

Look, I’m sorry to be blunt all you Greenies (you know how normally polite and respectful I am to you and your cause) but don’t you think the charade has gone on long enough? Do you not think, maybe, that given that the IPCC is the basis of all your so-called “science” on climate change, and given that the IPCC has been proven dozens of times now to have been hijacked by activists with about as much of a handle on objective reality as Syd Barrett locked in a cupboard during a particularly bad acid trip, it mightn’t be time finally to do the decent thing?

Either come over to the side of reality, truth and climate scepticism (as your Lynas has sort of done) and admit you’re wrong. Or gather together in your last redoubt with your Hansens and your Gores and your Porritts and all the other die hards and do the only other honorable thing: show the courage of your convictions by staging a Climate Masada.

Related posts:

  1. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert
  2. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?”

  1. spark says:19th June 2011 at 1:41 pmCouldn’t find an email address so decided to use this venue.

    I first found your columns when the East Anglia scandal broke out almost two years ago.

    Keep up the good work.

Wind Farms Kill Whales: Blubber on the Green Movement’s Hands

Ungreen energy

The price of wind?

The price of wind?

So wind farms don’t just despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, but they also


According to researchers at the University of St Andrews, the sound of offshore wind farms is likely to mess with the whales’ sensitive sonar systems and drive them ashore, where they get stuck on beaches and die.

Has anyone else noticed the gentle irony here? Well, let me explain with the help of my magic sledgehammer: save possibly the polar bear and the mighty snail darter there is no creature on the planet more totemic of green values than the whale. Saving whales is what greens do. Or rather what they used to do in the days when greens were actually interested in caring for the environment instead of, say, trying to destroy the capitalist system. But now, here they are actively promoting a form of renewable energy which in the process of producing next to no energy very expensively also does the most stupendous damage to the environment and the eco-system.

I wonder how long it will be before the University of St Andrews team which came up with this research is accused of being in the pay of big oil.

And I wonder what Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore – who in the mid-70s risked his life on many whale-saving expeditions – makes of it.

Actually I know what he makes of it because I’m reading his brilliant book: Confessions of A Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of A Sensible Environmentalist (Beatty Street).

I can’t recommend it highly enough. Moore is the real deal: a PhD ecologist who got into the environmental movement because he loved nature rather than because he hated mankind. He wanted to make the world a better place and he did: in those early days, Greenpeace did valuable work opposing nuclear testing, drift net fishing, industrial pollution and large scale whaling. But then, as he recounts in the book, the environmental movement lost its way:

Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement have adopted policy after policy that reflects their antihuman bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment. They oppose forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource. They have zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition. They continue to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They campaign against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity. And they support the vicious and misguided campaign against salmon farming, an industry that produces more than a million tons of heart-friendly food every year.”

And, no, he doesn’t think much of wind farms either:

“How can windmills be green when they require five times as much steel and concrete per unit of power produced compared to nuclear plants and when they occupy vast areas of land?”


It has been drawn to my attention that the man who led the St Andrews research team has violently, passionately and emphatically dissociated himself from the original Telegraph news item suggesting that his research showed wind farms to be deleterious to the health of whales. I am delighted to put this straight.

What this means is that, though at this stage we know for absolute certain that wind farms despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives, the possibility that they also lure whales to their doom remains at this stage an unproven hypothesis. (Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, then.)

Related posts:

  1. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…
  2. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  3. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  4. Sorry, but wind farms are useless even against vampires

14 thoughts on “Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands”

  1. John D says:19th March 2011 at 11:32 amSo do sonars and ships, are we going to ban those too? Glass windows kill far more birds than wind farms, is the denial movement going to ban windows as well? Energy prices are already going up due to higher fuel prices…. and killing off 3.7 jobs, where do you get your dodgy statistics from?
  2. James Delingpole says:19th March 2011 at 2:57 pmOh dear, John. Do you know what a straw man argument is?
  3. John D says:20th March 2011 at 8:33 amNo James, but a strawlemming is a denialist who hasn’t time to read science but has plenty of time to bash science. Remember your interview with Paul Nurse?

    Watch this get censored…

  4. Nige Cook says:20th March 2011 at 5:57 pm“So do sonars and ships, are we going to ban those too? Glass windows kill far more birds than wind farms, is the denial movement going to ban windows as well?” – John D

    James makes this point in his book How to be right in the context of oil spill pollution at sea. It turns out that the number of sea birds covered in oil is trivial compared to the number killed by windows and windfarms.

    The point is, the green movement isn’t moral, right, just, honest, decent, and correct just because it has a left wing political agenda. It’s efforts to do away with safe, clean nuclear by lying about radiation will have serious environmental consequences, that make radiation look attractive and natural by comparison. The left lies in pretending background radiation is insignificant compared to radioactive pollution (it’s the other way around), and by pretending the fruit fly linear-response curve is still valid (it’s not, DNA repair enzymes have been proved to produce hormesis even at radiation levels well above natural radiation background, which is far above nuclear pollution levels).

    Unfortunately, if anyone in a position of authority in the health physics legislation quangos speaks up for the facts on radiation, they’ll be fired by Cameron and friends for the crime of political incorrectness.

  5. Nige Cook says:20th March 2011 at 6:34 pmWhat is curious is that the green movement fascists don’t even get the message here. The message is that windfarms, solar cells, etc., have environmental consequences, so they aren’t automatically safe just because they have green propaganda behind them. On the contrary, the politically correct power sources are provably the real danger, unlike nuclear power. I’ve experienced this before.

    You prove to the anti-nuclear propaganda politicians that “the radiation from nuclear power is trivial compared to natural background radiation”, and they honestly don’t get the message. They say “well we can’t stop background radiation but we can stop nuclear pollution, even if it’s trivial by comparison”. Then you explain, as Feynman did in the 1960s, that if they’re really worried about radiation, they should first ban people flying in aircraft, climing mountains, and living at high altitudes or in other places where the natural radioactive background is several times higher than in London. They then quieten down a bit but soon forget the facts and start again. They’re just too biased, which gives them protective stupidity, just as forecast by Orwell in his 1984:

    “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” ( )

    First, alternatives produce very little energy, so you need an awful lot of them. Britain doesn’t get enough sunshine to make solar cells a substantial contributor even if every roof in the country is covered. So you need windfarms, and lots of them. You also need them in different places, to try to compensate for wind variations over the country. They shut down in both calm and gales, so you don’t generate any power in very hot weather (where there is a high pressure ridge over the country, with no breeze), or in very stormy weather. Both are times you get power surges for cooling (fans, aircon, etc.) or heating.

    Next, they cost lives to put up and maintain, because they’re high up and need maintenance, and people have to climb up there. Accidents happen.

    Then they pollute the skyline. Tidal power suffers from the maintenance problems, plus shipping hazards. The more clutter there is around the coasts, the more boating accidents will be caused. Also, extracting enough tidal energy to really make a difference is going to take that energy out of the tides around the coast. Energy is conserved. So there will be marine ecosystem effects, and the trials to date which extract negligible energy don’t indicate the environmental effects from enormous tidal energy systems that can provide useful power. More likely, however, the massive systems will simply break down (at great repair cost) during severe storms at sea. You’re not going to hear genuine negative criticisms from the scientists working on these projects, who have a vested interest in getting continued funding.

    The danger is that politically correct fashion will divert vast sums of money into not just down the drain, but into dangerous projects covering vast areas with environmentally threatening, high-maintenance technology that will break down just when most needed. All to appease the ignorant anti-nuclear propaganda lobby.

    The idea of using biofuels is just an inefficient version of electric solar power: biofuels are grown using solar energy (sunlight), then they have to be harvested, processed and more biofuel plants grown to take their place. Just as with solar power, biofuels require vast areas to be used if you want to replace existing power sources like oil.

  6. Chris P says:22nd March 2011 at 4:37 amIn the US cats kill over 500 million birds each year. Wind turbines less than 1 million.

    James is so bad at facts it’s not funny.

  7. James Stevens says:24th March 2011 at 9:29 pmJames, either you are deliberately misrepresenting what you read, or you simply do not know how to read scientific papers. Either way you are being highly irresponsible writing about scientific issues. The research you mention simply does not show what you claim it does above. See the link below for details.

  8. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 11:09 amJames Stevens, I take my hat off to you. That is a wonderfully succinct comment; the like of which Nige Cook and I can but aspire to emulate.
  9. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:09 pmMartin,

    If you want the scientific journal references, please see my draft paper on global climate change lies:

    Please see specifically the NOAA data in figure 1 which shows how H2O vapour fall (caused by a shift of global H2O from vapour to condensed cloud cover water, hence global dimming which stopped tree-ring data temp proxy working after 1960) has cancelled out CO2. Also, the recent evidence in figure 5 for strong negative feedback and its implications in fig 6 for predicted global temperatures in 2100 (all IPCC models rely on the false positive H2O feedback; with negative feedback there is zero temperature rise, and with zero feedback there is just 1C rise for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere).

  10. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:38 pm(Correction: “it’s” in the first sentence of my abstract should be “its”. I’ll correct that before submitting to a journal. The point remains: the published NOAA data for a drop in humidity cancelling out CO2 effects is justified by the published data of Spencer, Braswell, Christy, & Hnilo’s paper “Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations”, Geophysical Research Letters, which shows that cloud cover has a strong negative feedback on temperature. CO2 simply pushes the down the ratio of H2O vapour/H2O cloud drops, while the overall amount of H2O is pretty much constant. The change in the ratio cancels out the CO2 effect on climate. You might have an increase in mean cloud cover from 61-62%, but you won’t get a temperature change due to CO2 in the real world, which simply isn’t a greenhouse because of cloud cover.)
  11. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 3:52 pmTypo corrected:
  12. John D says:27th March 2011 at 4:46 amIf James says the green movement is killing whales and birds, does that James and his denialist movement is screaming for a ban on windows, planes, sonars, ships and all manner of modern technology because they kill birds and whales too?
  13. Nige Cook says:27th March 2011 at 10:46 amJohn D: James’ is putting the issue in perspective by pointing out the relative risks from other technologies. It’s just pathetic that the only response green fascists can make in reply, is to claim that James is “screaming for a ban on windows, planes, sonars, ship…”

    You’re deliberately misconstruing James’ very clear and funny sarcasm. It really has to be spelled out to you, doesn’t it, that James is being sarcastic. You’re so thick and prejudiced that you can’t see that “green” technologies are a far bigger danger than say nuclear scare mongering. The response of former New Scientist editor Jeremy Webb (an Exeter uni electronics graduate, who was a sound engineer at the BBC before joining New Scientist) in 2001 at the “New Scientist Global Environment Roadshow” to Dr Helene Guldberg (reported in her article “Eco-evangelism” on the website Spiked Science) was “Why take the risk?” She had asked Jeremy why nobody was being scientific and evaluating objections to scare-mongering.

    This proves that you need to understand relative risks or you have no perspective at all. Everything is risky. Unless you compare risks, you have no objectivity.

    People who smoke 20 cigarettes/day for 50 years have a 25-fold increase in the natural risk of lung cancer (Fig 1.1 at ). I.e., smoking 365,000 cigarettes gives a 2500% lung cancer risk increase, so if the dose-effect relationship were linear, you get a 1% increase in lung cancer risk for every 146 cigarettes smoked. However, if you look at the actual graph, it’s not linear but goes up by a curve whose gradient increases almost exponentially with increasing dose, so 20 per day for 20 years only doubles the natural risk, implying a 1% increase in risk for every 1,460 cigarettes smoked. So people who smoke at the same rate for 20 years have a risk per cigarette that is 10 times smaller than those who smoke at the same rate for 50 years.

    A more severe example, where the cause changes the effects in a qualitative way, not just quantitatively, is vitamin A. You first go blind and then your immune system packs in and you have increased cancer risks and genetic risks that make Hiroshima look like a picnic, if you don’t get sufficient vitamin A. Too much vitamin A, and you’re poisoned and die like many arctic explorers who ate the livers of polar bears or other polar mammals. So here the dose-mortality curve is not just non-linear, but has two peaks: 100% lethality at zero dose and at high doses.

    The same applies to things like proteins and sunshine, causing terrific problems for government advice. Government’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has finally been trying to “balance” the conflict that sunshine exposure permits vitamin D production, but also increases skin cancer risks. There is an endless controversy on this, caused by health experts advising on sunshine exposure to ensure people get enough vitamin D, and cancer researchers warning that sunshine ultraviolet radiation verges the soft X-ray spectrum, and is therefore ionizing and destructive to DNA with a cancer risk, like being exposed to large doses of nuclear radiation.

    In the real world, there are always counter-risks to any action. You can’t eliminate risk. People who quit smoking completely may end up drinking or eating to excess instead. You have to face all the facts, and take account of the consequences of other risks that emerge when you try to reduce one risk. Otherwise, you’re hyping deluded propaganda.

  14. John D says:28th March 2011 at 10:16 amTalk about pot calling kettle…

    Doesn’t James frequently goes off tangent accusing anyone not of the rightwing libertarian agenda of killing 3rd world people, whales, fascism etc etc. Then to add to that, uses 3 words in an email to destroy the reputation of one scientist without looking into the details of the 3 words?

    But when asked a question about whether to drink orange juice to cure a serious condition or follow the advice of the majority of experts in the field, blubbermouth Delingpole falls apart and accuses the BBC of a stitch up without answering the question!

Comments are closed.