Does no one care about the plight of drowning Samoa? Apparently not…

The Prime Minister of Samoa has launched a heartfelt plea in the Guardian newspaper on behalf of his allegedly drowning Pacific nation. (H/T Bufo 75)

Unless concerted international action is taken to deal with the threat of ‘climate change’, apparently, small islands like his will be “inundated by rising sea levels.”

Tragically, it looks as if this request by the splendidly named Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, is destined to fall on deaf ears.

Even a fair chunk of the Guardian’s impeccably green, left-liberal readership, it seems, is now sufficiently well-informed to appreciate that sea levels aren’t actually rising in any dramatic, significant or unprecedented way, and that the “drowning Pacific islands” meme is just a piece of a Third World blackmail designed to guilt-trip richer Western nations into stumping up more aid.

Here’s one comment:

I’m afraid that, just as was the case with the Maldives story, this is an utter fraud being attempted by a money grubbing politician.Check the facts about what is happening.

And:

So, Mr. Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, just how much money do you want?

And:

And even more to the point, only 7 percent of Samoan land area is below 5m above sea level.So the plea for action for small, vulnerable nations like ours, seems a bit of a stretch as far as Samoa is concerned, even though some other places may be going the way of Atlantis.

Still another commenter points unhelpfully to the fact that most Pacific Islands are in fact growing not sinking.

Read the rest at Breitbart London.

Related posts:

  1. Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously
  2. How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?
  3. There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity
  4. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one

 

Lovelock goes mad for shale gas | James Delingpole

June 18, 2012

Lovelock: growing wiser with old age

A glorious interview with James Lovelock in today’s Guardian. Essential reading for everyone, greens especially. In it, the inventor of Gaia theory and godfather of modern environmentalism declares that wind farms are hideous, renewables are a waste of space, nuclear power is good, sea level rises aren’t a worry, environmentalism has replaced Christianity as the global religion and that we should all be “going mad on” shale gas, which he considers our best energy hope for the immediate future.

My favourite line, though is this one:

“I’m neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats.”

Needless to say the eco-nuts who congregate beneath Komment Macht Frei are going mental. One commenter calls him an “evil bastard”. Several others say they always thought Gaia theory was total rubbish anyway and suggest that at 92 Lovelock has probably started to lose his marbles.

Really? All sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Have a read of this:

Lovelock does not miss a chance to criticise the green movement that has long paid heed to his views. “It’s just the way the humans are that if there’s a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”

Or this:

Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how “ugly and useless they are”), he is now coming out in favour of “fracking”, the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”

If anyone can find serious flaws in this argument, I’d love to hear them. (And no: “James Lovelock is, like, really old, and, like, Gaia Theory sucks. Heh heh heh,” isn’t good enough).

My only criticisms of Lovelock’s recantations are that a) they couldn’t have come a few years earlier (they would have been a lot braver – and more devastating – when the global warming craze was at its peak and that b) they seem to have been prompted at least partly by self-interest.

The move, he says, has been forced on him. Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife’s hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy.

Could he really not see where green energy policies (inspired partly by his doomsday predictions in books like The Revenge of Gaia) were leading until he was socked with his first whacking great £6,000 heating bill? If so, then it strikes me as both a woeful failure of imagination and a lack of clear thinking. High energy bills, after all, are no accident. They are result of a very deliberate strategy by environmental pressure groups to make energy bills more expensive in order to force everyone to reduce their energy usage. Of course, the people this hits hardest are the ones for whom reducing energy usage is not really a viable option: the old and inform, many of whom have been driven into “fuel poverty” by the greens’ well-meaning attempts to save the world from the illusory threat of ManBearPig.

Still, better late then never, eh?

Related posts:

  1. Are lefties incredibly stupid or just plain evil?
  2. 24 Types of Authoritarians
  3. Am I offending the wrong Americans?
  4. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’

One thought on “Lovelock goes mad for shale gas”

  1. Herkinderkin says:26th June 2012 at 6:01 amHeh heh. Reminds me of Germaine Greer. She too, recanted somewhat as she aged. And like Lovelock’s change of heart, hers got naff-all coverage from the mainstream media.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Fakegate

February 20, 2012

I wasn’t going to write about yesterday’s Heartland Institute shock-horror revelations in the Guardian because I thought it was a non-story. “Independent libertarian think-tank spends trifling* sums of money to counter the state’s liberal-left propaganda”. Gosh, hold the front page. Run it next to the story about the Pope being caught worshipping regularly in Rome and the photograph of a bear pooping behind a tree…

Since then, though, it has got much more interesting. Turns out that at least some of the “leaked” documents purporting to show the round, unvarnished face of capitalist, anti-science evil may have been faked.

Watts Up With That has the details:

My favourite giveaway clue that Watts-y has spotted is this one:

6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense. This contrasts with purposeful language in the other documents. This one sentence in particular has gotten a lot of attention:

His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

I can’t imagine pitching “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.” to a board of directors at a meeting. It is a sure recipe for a public relations nightmare.

No, indeed. If you’re going to pretend to be one of the “enemy” at least have the intelligence to try to think like the “enemy” would. I know this is going to come as a major shock to the kind of foam-flecked, cerebrally-deficient eco-zealots who scrawl in red crayons for DeSmog blog or earn lavish salaries as propaganda shills for the Grantham Institute or fester at the Guardian’s environment pages, but here’s an amazing fact…

Ready for your amazing fact, fruit loop eco-loons?

OK. Here goes.

We climate realists don’t think of ourselves as anti-science.

No, really. We think we’re pro-science. That’s what we want science teachers to teach kids in schools: hard science – physics, chemistry, biology. Stuff that’s empirical. Theories that are falsifiable. Not the kind of junk science they teach in places like the school of “environmental” “science” at comedy institutions like the “University” of East Anglia. Because that’s not science at all. It’s computer-modelling, projection, which is more akin to necromancy.

So, next time you try to fake your Protocols of the Elders of Climategate document, guys, at least try to credit the people you’re trying to smear with a bit of integrity. Not everyone is like you, you realise?

* To give you an idea how trifling is the amount spent funding climate scepticism relative to the amount spent by the state nurturing climate alarmism, consider this horrifying revelation at Bishop Hill, which in turn came from Not A Lot Of People Know That:

I can…reveal that, during the financial year 2009/10 (the most recent for which the data is available), Research Council spending on “climate change research and training” amounted to £234 million. This analysis was provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) on behalf of Research Councils UK (RCUK).

£234 million in Britain alone? And still these junk-scientist doom-mongers can’t manage to amass sufficient evidence to win an argument against a handful of ill-funded bloggers. Says it all, really.

UPDATE

And here’s Jo Nova, putting those shocking Heartland Institute funds for climate sceptics in their proper perspective….

Related posts:

  1. Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock
  2. The BBC is at least a thousand times more evil and dangerous than Rupert Murdoch
  3. Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist
  4. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief

One thought on “Fakegate”

  1. Thesdagas says:21st February 2012 at 4:35 pmThe Reason for Veteran Suicideshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVUHalR8P0I&feature=player_embedded

    Winner of Best Short Film of the Year and Best Editing for the Mitten Movie Project 2010, Royal Oak, MI
    Official Selection of the 2010 Blue Water Film Festival
    Official Selection of the 2011 Detroit Independent Film Festival, Central Florida Film Festival, Detroit Windsor International Film Festival, DC Shorts Film Festival

    People think their soldiers return home to parades. I know better. And it’s time you all learn.

    This is the reason for veteran suicides. Broken families. Broken homes. Children legally kidnapped from their capable fathers due to bitterness and hatred from a failed marriage. When you rip children away from their parents, you commit the soul murder of two human beings: The child who will never know the true fullness of life, and the parent who loses their deepest connection with their kid.

    This is the definitive director’s cut of “Purple Heart’s Final Beat,” color corrected and improved from its original version with a new introduction.

    Join the Fight for Equality in Parenting!
    SecondClassCitizen.org
    LightcraftEntertainment.com

    Suicide statistics gathered and verified by CBS.
    All end statistics were verified and collected by a 20-year combat veteran sergeant in the US Army. Non-public records were used in the gathering of these statistics.
    The federal government does not acknowledge the true numbers and its own statistics do not include Coast Guard, Reserve or National Guard. The public figure of 4.3% veteran divorce rate released is a cover up by the Pentagon. After all, if the standard rate for the population is 50%, how could there be such a drastic difference?

Comments are closed.

How ‘Right-Wing’ Was Anders Breivik?

Ander Breivik's 'manifesto' - not the fault of right-wing bloggers

Anders Breiviks manifesto – not the fault of Right-wing bloggers

Apparently it was all the fault of Right-wing bloggers and Right-wingness generally. We know this because an important, symbolic, portentous cartoon by Martin Rowson tells us (Or not: see note below) so in the Guardian. And so does the New York Times.

More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.

Damn. What fools we were. There we were deluding ourselves after the USS Cole, and the Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam bombings, and the Madrid train bombings, and 7/7, and the ‘Mumbai’ Massacre and the shoebomber plot and the Heathrow plot and the LAX plot and the New York car bomb plot and the Fort Hood massacre and, oh, yeah, 9/11 that the world’s greatest terrorist threat came from Islamists who love death even more than we love Coca Cola. But this in fact was all just a red herring, brought about by the racism and Islamophobia of conservatives and libertarians and Tea Partiers to distract anti-terrorism resources from the real menace: Right-wing extremists like themselves.

Here’s comedian Charlie Brooker in the Guardian showing us all the correct way to think, using the medium of mirth. He knew, did our greatest living scourge of poor quality game shows, he just knew right from the start that the Norway killings could never have been the result of Islamist extremism. With his characteristic Swiftian scorn, he concludes:

So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren’t Muslim, they’ve managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they’ve been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by “security experts” quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about “Muslim-only loos” or local councils “banning Christmas”.

Yeah, stupid, Right-wing dominated media and Right-wing commentators. Fancy leaping to the conclusion as the first sketchy reports emerged that the car bombing and shooting of innocent civilians might be the work of Islamist terrorists. I mean, where’s the precedent for that?

The New York Times does even better. It has actually found a tame “expert” ex-CIA no less who declares of the “counterjihad” blogosphere:

“The rhetoric is not cost free.”

This, needless to say, has made the more excitable elements in the Left-wing commentariat positively explode with vengeful glee.

Here’s Greenpeace’s Head of Media tweeting, as they say, in a private capacity.

@sunny_hundal Yep, curious Twitter silence from Ms Phillips since cited on p 361-3-8 and 370 in #Oslo manifesto.

So all those commentators who’ve ever claimed with such devilish tricks as evidence and fact-based argument that political Islam poses a threat to Western security, and all those people who have ever expressed concern about the apparent unwillingness of many modern Muslims to integrate with their host culture, or about the double-standards of Western governments over issues like genital mutilation and “honour-killing”, or about the dangers of unchecked immigration, are tacitly responsible for the massacre of over 90 innocent teenagers by a deranged, lone-wolf killer?

Great. Glad we cleared that one up. Better clamp down on freedom of speech right away, in case any more of these atrocities happen.

*Just had a note from Martin Rowson, pointing out that the fulminator of internet hate in his cartoon is in fact a Muslim. You can tell by the crescent on his laptop, which I failed to notice. My bad. Sorry, Martin.

Related posts:

  1. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  2. Norwich North: If only they could ALL lose
  3. How the BBC reported Al Qaeda’s plot to blow seven US and British airliners out of the sky
  4. Happy Climate Fools’ Day

4 thoughts on “How ‘Right-wing’ was Anders Breivik?”

  1. JimmyGiro says:26th July 2011 at 1:03 pmWith so many commentators, each cherry picking their favourite Breivik ‘association’, and therefore ’cause’, we will either end up with a one man legion of Breiviks, or else a stew of idiotic commentators, left holding their collective dicks.

    Breivik is unique, or if familiar to any science, of such a rare breed as to be near impossible to categorise by mere association. And with a 1500 page document, with words he selected when not himself the author, would give as good a summary of the man than any cherry picking exercise by those desperate to ride in public their personal political hobby-horse, entitled “Why all good people like me, are not ‘Breivik’.”

    As an illustration, how many on the left will point out that from the age of one, Breivik, along with one of his step sisters, was raised by his single-parent mother?

  2. Andrew Ryan says:26th July 2011 at 2:37 pmYou reap what you sow – every time some nut goes on a rampage, the Right falls over itself to look for a Lefty or Godless background. If this guy had Polly Toynby in his reading list instead of Jeremy Clarkson and Melanie Phillips, believe me we’d know all about it by now.

    And if he’d been a Muslim or an atheist, or had targeted a church or a bunch of right wingers, we would never hear the end of it. Muslims would be asked to ‘put their house in order’; atheists would be told to ‘disassociate themselves from this murderer among their ranks’.

    When people on the right such as Ann Coulter say things like “‘The question is not, ‘Are all Muslims terrorists?’ The question is, ‘Are all terrorists Muslims?’ The answer is yes ,” then it is surely quite fair enough to point out a terrorist who is not a Muslim.

    Finally: “With his characteristic Swiftian scorn…” followed a paragraph or so later by: “Fancy leaping to the conclusion … I mean, where’s the precedent for that?”

    Please tell me this is deliberate irony – damning Brooker for attempting “Swiftian scorn” followed by a sarcastic paragraph completely aping Brooker’s style.

  3. colin powis says:26th July 2011 at 6:25 pmLet’s face it , Norway is not exactly a bastion of Christendom; this creep was an admirer of ”christian heritage ”and most certainly not a christian , per se…by his own admission , he accepted the facts of evolution and was probabely a deist , angostic or new age animist
    Politically speaking , he’s nearer to the neo nazi or EDL movement
    Furthermore , it’s bogus to try an equate him to the likes of Timothy Mcviegh as Mc was clearly a paranoid conspiracy theorist , anti goverment , redneck that seem to infest parts of rural america…..Breivik was much more intelligent , sophisticated and well read than that Yahoo
  4. David Heffron says:27th July 2011 at 8:24 amI think it is importiant to challenge our assumptions. Was he right wing? Some people might say that killing a whole load of people because of a percieved hatred of “cultural marxists” and who wanted a “crusade” against the spread of Islam was right wing.

    But are these beliefs “right wing”?

    Yes. Yes they are.

    I agree however that the likes of Melanie Phillips cannot be individually blamed for inspiring any one person. It’s like eating nothing but cakes all day then blaming an individual bun for making you fat.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Joy Shall Be in Heaven over One Sinner That Repenteth

Stunned angels, yesterday, after reading Monbiot

Stunned angels, yesterday, after reading Monbiot

George Monbiot on Japan:

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution.

H/T Bufo

UPDATE. Im grateful to Pirran for his informed insights into the rationale behind Monbiots spectacular conversion:

Moonbat has discovered the New Truthiness. GreenieNuke reactors are powered by the enduring hope of a new tomorrow. They are run by folk singers and vegans.

Old, dirty, nuclear reactors were the problem. They employed fat cats and lawyers and processed week-old puppies as fuel PUPPIES FOR GODS SAKE!! Thats why the Green movement was SO justified in condemning them.

Related posts:

  1. Japan: whatever happened to the nuclear meltdown?
  2. Nuclear power – some perspective
  3. Haiti disaster caused by failure of Copenhagen summit – says actor Danny Glover
  4. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’

12 thoughts on “Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”

  1. JLK says:23rd March 2011 at 3:16 pmHi JamesWhen my wife came into my office asking me “who George Monbiot is” I told her about His Looniness and she proceeded to read me the “money quote” about “crappy Nukes” from the WSJ.

    I immediately went to your site and was not disappointed. Maybe there is a God with logic and brains out there! Now if we could get one of the well known greenies from here to quoth a similar mea culpa. I am not counting on Al Gore to see the light.
    JLK

  2. Bernie Kelly says:24th March 2011 at 12:01 pmThis is great news! Whether a firm believer in CAGW or a skeptic or disbeliever, we have a solution to the common problem of energy security. All of us in the spectrum can put our differences aside and get on with the task of replacing coal and gas and possibly oil with Nuclear generated electricity. The world needs cheap power, essential to raise the poor out of misery.
    I am particularly excited about prospects of Thorium and/or Gen. 4 nuclear power
  3. Martin Lack says:24th March 2011 at 6:42 pmHi James,I agree that it is good that George Monbiot has got off the fence w.r.t. Nuclear Energy. He thus joins the ranks of such luminaries as James Loelock and Stewart Brand (see this very challenging YouTube video of his 4 environmental heresies [circa July 2009]).

    However, you really need to “change the record” w.r.t. your characiture of global warming as a “new religion” (a la Freeman Dyson) or “climate alarmism” (a la Richard Lindzen)….

    You have suggested elsewhere that there is a large body of british sceptics who question the consensus represented by the IPCC (which you claim has been discredited). However, as usual, your tiresome and unsubstantiated accusations fail to take into account the following:

    40% of the US population think that human activity is changing our climate and/or that any such change is a serious problem;
    Whereas 70% of the UK population think it is.
    However, at least
    75% of scientists think it is.
    More specifically, at least 82% of earth scientists think it is.
    And finally, the equivalent figure is 97% of climate scientists.
    That is what I call a consensus.

    Furthermore, what is the sceptical position?
    The atmosphere may not be warming; but if it is, this is probably due to natural variation; but even if it isn’t, the amount of warming is insignificant; but if it is, the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages; but if they don’t, technology will solve problems as they arise; but if it can’t, we shouldn’t wreck the economy to fix the problem.
    (Adapted from p.257 of “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” (2nd Ed), Robert Henson (2008).
    That is what I call a joke!

    Wikipedia has nailed you guys for what you are when it defines “climate change denial as… organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming

    However, as David Aaronovitch observes in his new book Voodoo Histories Conspiracy theories normally improve on reality. Therefore, it is AGW denial – rather than acceptance – that looks like a conspiracy and yes, in the UK, the Institute of Economic Affairs is its biggest corporate proponent. However, with the IEA, the clue to their problem is in their name – they are all economists! It is just a shame they did not shut up and go away when Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out that climate AGW is the greatest market failure in history“(right there on p.1). And before anyone suggests it – that rules out “discounting” future costs as an easy get-out clause…

    Here endeth the lesson.

  4. Nige Cook says:24th March 2011 at 9:07 pm

    “The atmosphere may not be warming; but if it is, this is probably due to natural variation; but even if it isn’t, the amount of warming is insignificant; but if it is, the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages; but if they don’t, technology will solve problems as they arise; but if it can’t, we shouldn’t wreck the economy to fix the problem.
    (Adapted from p.257 of “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” (2nd Ed), Robert Henson (2008).

    – Quote above by Martin Lack

    Martin, this is a strawman attack on AGW critics. The climate is always changing, usually at rates faster than at present as proved by the fact that the current rate of rise of sea level is trivial compared to the average since the last ice age was at its peak!

    So your argument must begin by falsifying the record to make natural variations in temperature look unprecedented (the hockey stick curve). AGW theorists invent a falsely stable natural climate history, allowing them to then claim that CO2 injections correlate with their faked temperature rise. This is what James exposed in climategate.

    But it gets worse. The “greenhouse effect” is fake, as recent research on cloud cover shows. Unlike a greenhouse, where water vapour amplifies warming when CO2 is injected, in the real world without the glass ceiling of the greenhouse, water vapour that absorbs sunshine infrared and heats up is able to buoyantly rise until it meets cool air a few thousand feet up, forming cloud. As research shows, this is the end of the positive feedback theory whereby H2O amplifies CO2 effects on temperature by a factor of 2. Instead, the real bouyant H2O rises to form clouds which increases the earth’s albedo and cools the planet. So it produces negative feedback, which cancels out temperature changes from CO2 increases.

    Sooner or later you’re going to have to confront that this is real, solid physics, backed up by published research (e.g. see the evidence for strong negative feedback from cloud cover during 15 tropical intraseasonal oscillations in Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo, “Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations,” Geophysical Research Letters, 9 August 2007).

    Please get real. CO2 has only increased from 300 ppm to 388 ppm in the last hundred years. A tiny increase in cloud cover is enough to cancel out the temperature effect, and the mechanism for this increase in cloud cover is simple to grasp: http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate which includes the sorry tale of NASA censoring the anti-greenhouse mechanism of negative feedback from H2O:

    In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper “The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation”, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251).

    The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

    When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

    I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

    In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi’s results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

    Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
    Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

    Dr Miklos Zagoni

    The thing to note is that the dogma is so hardened that, as Al Gore/Comical Ali said, you can get away with lumping critics of the beloved AGW regime into the category of moonlanding deniers or holocaust deniers. In fact, you have to do this if you are in the AGW religion, because with all your data fake, you have no alternative than to throw mud and try to end the argument before it begins.

    Dr Zagoni’s evidence, is that the NOAA data showing a fall in the the global average absolute humidity diminished by 1 per cent from 1948-2009: “This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.”

    His argument here is that CO2 increased by 25% over that 61 year period (from 310 to 388 ppm), and so the 1% drop in H2O as water vapour over that period has cancelled it out (H2O in vapour – not cloud cover – form is 30 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, therefore a 1% drop in H2O is equivalent to a 30% drop in CO2).

    This is a nice clean evidence-based argument, but I don’t like the way Dr Zagoni (and others explaining that H2O is negative feedback cancelling CO2, not positive amplifying it) goes about his media relations. He starts off with a lot of technical modelling, all idealized stuff which is riddled with approximations and things for critics (the pro-AGW lobby) to get hung up on. He should put up the humidity fall graph and work on getting the explanation crystal clear, so even Al Gore could be put on the spot by it. Also, he needs to focus on explaining the simple physics for why the humidity has fallen: the warm humid air rises, making clouds.

    The question is, what will it take to make people wake up and smell the coffee on this one?

  5. James Delingpole says:25th March 2011 at 10:25 am@MartinLack My dear chap, you did promise us you were not going to come back. We all know here that you mean well, that you are passionately committed to your cause, but you don’t need to keep telling us. We know.
  6. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 10:50 amNige,It seems that when I address my comments to James; you reply. Does this mean that James will reply to this? I doubt it, because the only thing James has recently exposed is that he is no scientist and consequently avoids reading peer-reviewed literature; and prefers instead the continual recirculation of peer-to-peer denialist propaganda. Furthermore, although arguing with denialists (as with all conspiracy theorists) is a Herculean task; like cleaning out the Aegean stables. However, I have a brush in my hand so here goes…

    1. “A Rough Guide to Climate Change” is no “Strawman attack. This is because Robert Henson admits that no single denialist believes all of these things (p.257) but then spends the next 8 pages disproving each proposition in turn.

    2. MBH98 did not make the MWP or the LIA disappear, they (and all other reconstructions using different proxies) merely put those events in their proper perspective; as it is warmer now than it has ever been in human history (even NASA says so).

    3. True – water vapour has flattened the AGW that would otherwise have occurred (just as did atmospheric pollution between 1945 and 1975). But does that mean we should rely on it to solve our problem – absolutely not! Furthermore, water vapour is not the primary cause of the climate change we are now experiencing. In particular – in case you missed it (then or now) – your information on the efficacy of cloud cover is out of date, as this NOAA study from last year clearly demonstrates. Reading your posts is like reading one of my children’s semi-automated school reports and, clearly, you need to update your database of potential response material.

    4. Al Gore said, “Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries… have produced… a consensus that we… face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” (09/09/2005). Whereas, James Inhofe said, “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”(28/07/2003). Only one of these men can be right, but I know which one I would put my money on – the one backed by 97% of climate scientists, 82% of earth scientists and 75% of all scientists!

    5. As I have said to you before, water vapour is continuously varying in space and time; it always has done and always will. However, at any one time and in any one place it is typically between zero and 3%. Therefore, it is simply intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that there has been a 40% increase in CO2 levels since 1850, when they were already as high as they had been for 200k years. Furthermore, they are now higher than they have been for tens of millions of years. To continue to argue that this is not likely to cause the Earth’s climate system stress is reckless to say the least.

    I am fully awake and enjoying my coffee, how about you?

  7. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 11:03 amSorry to disappoint you James, but I have been unable to resolve my inability to reply to comments at http://my.telegraph.co.uk/earthyissues/.However, if you are saying that alternative views are not welcome here, then clearly, George Monbiot was right (see final paragraph here)! But I am sure you would not want to leave yourself open to that line of criticism, so I will not promise to leave you alone again. Incidentally, I cannot see that you ever responded to this (24/01/2011):

    I am looking forward to seeing tonight’s Horizon programme: I note your denial that you objected to the line of questioning put to you. If so, who is the source of claims that you did object? Furthermore, if Sir Paul Nurse is not intellectually capable of “raping” you, can you please enlighten me as to the scientific credentials that qualify you to make your cynical pronouncements on the subject of climate change?

    Even if the likes of Sir Paul Nurse, and/or David Mackay (see http://withouthotair.com [Part I, chapter 1 on “Motivations” especially]) cannot convince you that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are the primary causes of acceleration of the “greenhouse effect” since the Industrial Revolution, would you also argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is flawed? Would you indeed deny that the concept of entropy is a myth?

    Even if you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the 10 warmest years in the last 200 have all been in the last 3 decades; can you accept that the Earth’s resources and its capacity to accommodate humans are finite? Unfortunately, the Limits to Growth hypothesis of Meadows et al (1972) has been proven correct and, very soon now, we will have to confront some of those limits. The real myth is that perpetual growth is the solution to all our problems. It cannot be the solution to anything; it is our ultimate problem.

    Anyone who denies this is denying the reality of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the concept of entropy; and I for one would not dare to stick my neck out that far.

  8. yaosxx says:25th March 2011 at 1:18 pmJames – What the hell’s going on on DT Blogs – some are working but most are not!
  9. yaosxx says:25th March 2011 at 2:57 pmWell most blogs appear to be up and running – except for yours! Is there some sabotage going on…?
  10. Nige Cook says:25th March 2011 at 2:58 pmMartin Lack,1. I wrote that you were making a strawman attack by that contrived quotation,

    2. I wrote that it’s now warmer than ever before, since climate is always varying one way or another and it’s been warming since the minimum in sea levels (120 metres lower than today) 18,000 years ago. I’ve in previous comments commented on the mini ice age, caused by the North Atlantic conveyor e.g. Golf Stream shutting down due to ice shelfs melting and flooding the North Atlantic with bouyant fresh (non salty) water.

    3. The NOAA data from 1948 to now shows the fall in H2O vapour. You write: “Furthermore, water vapour is not the primary cause of the climate change we are now experiencing. In particular – in case you missed it (then or now) – your information on the efficacy of cloud cover is out of date, as this NOAA study from last year clearly demonstrates.”

    You’ve completely misunderstood what Susan Solomon (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), co-chair of the 2007 IPCC report, said. She said that the increase in H2O in the stratosphere caused 30% of the global warming in the 1990s, and thad thet 10% drop in H2O in the stratosphere since 2000 has had a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

    The Guardian article you linked indirectly to (via a nonsense propaganda blog!), by David Adam on 29 Jan 2010, “Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals”, starts with a photo of a cloud, captioned underneath:

    “A 10% drop in water vapour, 10 miles up has had an effect on global warming over the last 10 years, scientists say.”

    What David Adam and the Guardian editors conveniently fail to highlight in the caption is that the “effect” over tyhe past 10 years was cooling, not warming. In other words, the water effect over the past 10 years DID EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU: IT STOPPED GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

    It’s a classic example of the highly biased Guardian misinforming highly biased people like you into making lying attacks on scientists. The article did go on to eventually state: “A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.” Apparently you didn’t read that?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

    The 10% drop in stratospheric H2O in 2000-2010 is included in the NOAA data I quoted. If you know anything about climate, you’d know there is no water in the stratosphere to speak of: it’s concentrated below the tropopause. So that’s a strawman argument by you, yet again.

    “Reading your posts is like reading one of my children’s semi-automated school reports and, clearly, you need to update your database of potential response material.”

    Martin, you should not start getting personally abusive until you know the facts. Your incompetence to see that even the Guardian article you refer to agrees with what I said (the NOAA data from 1948-2009 showing a fall in total H2O vapour) shows you’re the one with the problems. Maybe you need to stop and think for a change before jumping to conclusions?

    “As I have said to you before, water vapour is continuously varying in space and time; it always has done and always will.”

    We agree here that the total amount of H2O in the atmosphere is not varying: what I’ve been telling you is that the partition of that H2O between vapour and liquid droplet phases has varied. The NOAA data show a fall in vapour by 1% since 1948, with an increase in cloud cover (albedo increasing). As H2O vapour falls, the greenhouse effect due to H2O falls, and it’s 30 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so a 1% fall in H2O vapour is like a 30% fall in CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas. As condensed H2O (cloud droplets) increased, it reflected more sunlight away from the earth. So the change in partition cancels out CO2 effects, just as your beloved Guardian stated has occurred in the past decade!

  11. Martin Lack says:25th March 2011 at 7:41 pmNige,If you had bothered to read my (“nonsense propaganda“) blog artcile, you would have noticed that I accept exactly the points you, nonetheless, felt it was necessary to repeat. However, the NOAA admit the cooling effect of water vapour reduced (but did not cancel out) the warming that occurred. Furthermore, they would NOT agree with you that we therefore need not be concerned about global warming.

    As ever, you are highly selective about which points you choose to agrue and those which you choose to ignore. I would give you, at most, 10 years until you will have to O/D on humble pie.

  12. Nige Cook says:26th March 2011 at 9:01 amMartin,“As ever, you are highly selective about which points you choose to agrue and those which you choose to ignore.”

    As I stated, Susan Solomon (US NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), co-chair of the 2007 IPCC report said that the increase in H2O in the stratosphere caused 30% of the global warming in the 1990s, and that the 10% drop in H2O in the stratosphere since 2000 has had a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

    The key data that debunks AGW is NOAA’s 1948-2009 curves showing a 1% drop in H2O vapour, equivalent to a 30 x 1% = 30% drop in CO2 greenhouse gas equivalent, which well cancels out the 25% rise in CO2 measured during this period.

    Since it suits you, you ignore this complete set of long-term data, you selectively focus on a subset of it – for the last 10 years – by a Solomon at NOAA who was co-chair of the biased 2007 IPCC report – and then you accuse me of being “selective”!

    I include all the evidence from 1948-2009. You only comment on the last 10 years. So you’re the one being highly selective. The data is in, and you’re disproved. First, there is no non-fiddled evidence for any unnatural global warming. All the data is fiddled. Tree ring growth is a function of cloud cover and rainfall, not merely air temp. Weather stations are affected by nearby city or industry growth, pumping out local heat (not a CO2 effect). Finally, weather satellites can’t see 62% of the surface because it’s under cloud.

    So they just measure the surface Planck spectrum and temperature for a biased sample of 38% of the earth’s area, namely that not under clouds. This biased sample then has to be corrected using flawed procedures. So in fact, you are the one who is being “highly selective”, not me!

Comments are closed.

Television: Weekly Shockers

Did you hear the one about Jordan’s disabled son? Unlikely, since you probably don’t watch Tramadol Nights (Channel 4), nor read the Mirror (‘Katie Price furious after Frankie Boyle joke about her disabled son’), nor the Guardian (‘Frankie Boyle’s Katie Price joke sparks Ofcom investigation’).

Don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat it here. What kind of sicko do you think I am: Rod Liddle? It’s an issue, nonetheless, on which my sympathies are more torn than common decency tells me they ought to be. Sure, it’s absolutely disgraceful that a nasty Scottish comedian should make light of the suffering of an eight-year-old boy with septo-optic dysplasia and autism. On the other hand, any joke that provokes the collective handwringing of the entire libtard media, the world’s dullest celebrity (Price), the world’s most stupid celebrity (her ex Peter Andre), Amanda Holden, Mencap and Ofcom must, almost by definition, be one we should cherish and Re-Tweet as often as we possibly can.

And what on earth were these people expecting of Frankie Boyle anyway? It’s not as though he’s the new Ronnie Corbett, tickling us gently with his relaxed armchair monologues. Frankie Boyle uses comedy like a broken bottle in a rough pub. He’s genuinely scary and hard and unpredictable. That’s why people go to see shows and even to sit in the front row and be hideously abused by him. They want to see just how low Boyle is prepared to go. And the answer, hence his career, is lower than anyone else.

An expert on violence once told me that similar rules apply in street fighting and gangland warfare. It’s not how good you are at martial arts that counts, or even how big you are. The one who wins is the one who turns more brutal, more quickly than the opposition. It’s the theme of the Bob Hoskins classic The Long Good Friday. It’s the theme of real-life gangs in cities around the world: whichever has the heaviest- duty weaponry and most merciless footsoldiers is the one that gets to control the trade.

Not, you understand, that I’m brandishing Boyle as a small-willied man does his Ferrari or his pit bull. Though I admire his fearlessness — such as the way the week after the Jordan furore, he moved on to telling jokes about cancer victims — I don’t find him nearly as funny as I do, say, Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse, or Armstrong and Miller, or Mitchell and Webb. I never go, ‘Oh good. Mock the Week’s on!’ Still less do I have any urge to watch again his latest sick-fest Tramadol Nights.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. How the BBC censored my monstrous, hideously offensive ‘Irish joke’
  2. Am I offending the wrong Americans?
  3. The fake disabled are crippling our economy
  4. Dumbing down: the awful truth

2 thoughts on “Television: Weekly shockers”

  1. Chris P says:11th January 2011 at 4:20 pmAnd yet you yourself call people “libtards”. Are you still stuck with playground vernacular.

    You have zero useful knowledge that could be used to move the planet forward. You are just like all the other scum on the other side of the Atlantic. Getting paid to write garbage that puts fear in the hearts of the gullible.

    Scaremongerer.

    The people I know who come up with new ideas and solve difficult technical problems aren’t gun carrying Tea Partiers at a political rally.

  2. Don Stuart says:12th January 2011 at 5:57 pmThere there Chris, go and soothe yourself with a nice rub down with the Independent. Mummy will be along in a minute to tuck you in with a piece by Polly Toynbee.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11 | James Delingpole

November 22, 2009

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise from all the hysterical propaganda put out by the ecofascists of the AGW lobby.

Here’s the latest example from those silly trustafarian children at Plane Stupid:

And here, for those who missed it, is a spat I’ve had with the Guardian over an elderly US war veteran who apparently considers it seemly and apt to compare the piles of emaciated bodies he saw being swept into heaps when he helped liberate a Nazi concentration camp at the end of World War II with “Climate Change.”

Sorry but I don’t see the connection at all. 9/11 was a brutal terrorist incident which claimed the lives of 2,976 innocent people. The Holocaust was an evil Nazi genocide which led to the mechanised slaughter of six million mostly Jewish men, women and children. Climate change is an ongoing natural process which last few million-odd years been directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one.

Related posts:

  1. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics

5 Responses to “Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11”

  1. Emmess says:November 22, 2009 at 9:23 amI see a connection
    The co-leader until recently of the New Zealand Green Party is a Trooferhttp://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/jeanette_continues_to_push_911_lunacy.html#comments
  2. Hurf Durf says:November 23, 2009 at 5:01 amYou had every right to challenge that letter, considering no concentration camps were liberated in 1944 and Newsweak never bothered to go into any detail about the incident. The Gradiaun’s response and their quartwit commenters shows that you were right to do so.
  3. AJ McConville says:November 23, 2009 at 10:07 amThe point is whether you think climate change is happening the way most scientists say. He thinks it is, you think it isn’t.
  4. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:04 am“Climate change is … directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one”?Not even one?

    I have seen your blog and it is lame.

  5. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:15 amYou even boast your own “spat” at the Guardian–when the article clearly shows how wrong you were in your uninformed accusations.Lame, lame, lame!

Power Cuts Are a Much More Serious Problem Than ‘Climate Change’

Today is the day when, in lieu of their gap-year jackarooing in Australia or eating magic mushroom omelette in Bali, Climate Camp protesters named Xan, Freddie, Minty, Tigger, Pidge, and Twig will run riot through London’s business district in protest at the outrageous, disgusting capitalist system that enabled Daddy to put them so cruelly, harshly and disgracefully through Eton, Westminster and St Mary’s, Calne.

More gag-inducingly still it is the day when dozens of celebrities will gather at The Tate Modern Gallery, London (NB – always remember to use that definite article: it does so annoy Nicholas Serota) to sign up for a wonderfully meaningless new eco campaign backed by the Guardian called 10: 10.

The campaign is the brainchild of Franny Armstrong, whose recent eco-movie The Age Of Stupid  is so unsophisticated it makes An Inconvenient Truth look like Tarkovsky, and is indeed now widely recognised as the second most lame, risibly awful and toe-curlingly emetic movie in British cinematic history after Love Actually.

It calls for everyone to help save the world by reducing their carbon footprint by 10 per cent in 2010. So far the roster of luvvies who have signed up to the scheme includes Radio 1 DJ Sara Cox, chefs Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Delia Smith and Ruth Rogers, screenwriter Richard Curtis, directors Richard Eyre and Mike Figgis, designers Nicole Farhi and Vivienne Westwood, TV presenter Kevin McCloud and actors including Samantha Morton, Jason Isaacs, Pete Postlethwaite, Colin Firth and Tamsin Greig.

What I like about these lists is that they give you an instant aide-memoire of all the celebrity pillocks whose broadcasts/recipes/duff plays and movies/clothes/building programmes you need never bother with again. (Shame about Antony Beevor, who is also mysteriously on the list. I was rather looking forward to reading his take on the Battle of the Bulge).

“But so what if this bunch of ocean-going knobs wish to burnish their egos and salvage their consciences by pledging to cut the odd weekend trip to Bora Bora here and plant the odd carbon-neutralising mango forest there? Who are we to judge?” I hear some of you asking.

And up to a point I’d agree with you. The thought that I shall be 10 per cent less likely to have any of these dorks sitting next to me on an EasyJet flight to Palma any time during 2010 is indeed of considerable comfort in these dark times. The problem is, I can’t get out of my head the much more urgent and terrifying story on the front of today’s Telegraph. The one predicting massive power cuts across Britain within ten years.

To anyone who reads Christopher Booker these dire predictions of 1970s-style black-outs are hardly news. Booker – and others – have been warning for years about the inevitable consequences of the upcoming “energy gap” and successive governments failure to fill it by commissioning more (preferably nuclear) power stations.

The only thing that surprises me about this long-running scandal is why it hasn’t been on the front page pretty much every other day for the past decade. Clearly, the prospect of the world’s fifth largest economic power being imminently reduced to rationing electricity, perhaps even limiting its industrial output – as in the Seventies – to a three-day week represents a major disaster for Britain. A disaster, it should be noted, of far greater effect and magnitude than anything which has so far happened to this country as a result of “climate change”.

So why haven’t we heard more about it? Why hasn’t the population – or at least the influential chattering class section of it – been galvanised into urging the Government to stop equivocating and come up with a half-way decent energy policy?

Why do you think? Because partly thanks to the attention-grabbing antics of idiots like the ones mentioned above, our politicians – not just Labour ones, but pretty much the whole of Cameron’s “progressive conservatives”, more’s the pity – have been encouraged to take their eye off the ball, and bleat piously about “alternative energy sources” and reducing carbon emissions instead.

Power cuts (and the energy gap) represent a clear and present danger to Britain and her economy. ‘Climate change’ does not. Unless we get our priorities right very soon, we’re all going to be in deep, deep trouble. And no amount of impassioned protesting by environmentally conscious ex-public-school-children or bien-pensant celebrities will be able to get us out of the hole that they personally did so much to help dig.

Related posts:

  1. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  2. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy
  3. Campaign Against Climate Change: a Christmas appeal
  4. Big, hot, shiny orb in sky caused by ‘climate change’ says UK Met Office