Greta the Teenage Climate Puppet Goes Full Marxist

greta thunberg

Greta Thunberg the teenage Climate Puppet has gone full Marxist.

In her latest public statement, she says that the ‘climate crisis is not just about the environment’:

It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.

To anyone familiar with the workings of the green movement, Greta’s statement will come as no surprise whatsoever.

That’s why I called my book on the subject Watermelons.

Read the rest on Breitbart.


Three Things We Must Do After the Failure of COP21: Rejoice; Rejoice and Rejoice!

“But what are you going to do?” he said.

“What do you mean what am I going to do?” I said.

“Well, it’s all over for you isn’t it? The science is settled. You deniers have basically lost…”

Which, weirdly enough, was not dissimilar to what the leader of the UK Green Party Natalie Bennett said when I debated with her yesterday on LBC radio about the disastrous outcome of the COP21 climate summit. According to Natalie, I was the kind of dinosaur that people like her wouldn’t need to talk to for much longer because our opinions were now so discredited there was no place for us in the debate.

Delusion? Cognitive dissonance? No, I’d say the psychological trauma and confusion the Greenies are going through in the wake of the COP21 debacle is far, far worse than that.

They make Japanese soldiers on remote Pacific islands still fighting World War II for Emperor Hirohito look informed and sensible; they make passengers on the listing Titanic worrying whether there’ll be enough ice for tomorrow night’s gin and tonic look sane and forward looking. They’re like the Jonathan Pryce character at the dark end of the Terry Gilliam movie, lolling brain dead in their chairs, completely away with the fairies and dementedly singing the movie’s title song Brazil – which is quite appropriate really, given that Brazil – Rio to be specific – was the place where all this climate nonsense started, what feels like a lifetime ago at the 1992 Earth Summit.

Meanwhile in the real world, reality looks like this:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why we fight

Over the top once more

My resolution this year is to be much more diplomatic and emollient and generally more sympathetic to the other point of view.

Naah. Just kidding.

But what I did think would be a good idea at the start of yet another year’s blogging is to remind ourselves where we’re at and why it is that I do the things I do, write the things I write, and say them in the uncompromising, no-prisoners-taken way I say them.

You might think it was because of people like this man – Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz in Austria, who argued on the university website (till he was embarrassed into taking his comments down) that all climate sceptics should be executed. Since I’m one of those on “ze list”, I suppose I should be quite exercised by this. But to be honest I’m delighted and feel I owe Herr Throatcutt a huge debt of thanks. He has done probably more to discredit the cause of climate change alarmism than perhaps anyone since Richard Curtis’s infamous “No Pressure” film – aka Splattergate.

No, the bigger problem are not the out-and-out eco-fascists but their useful idiots among the broader populace. Mild-mannered and reasonable-seeming people like this kindly gentleman, one Dr James Willis, who emailed me over Christmas thus:

This is the text of my new year email to quite a lot of people, sadly the lovely pictures don’t work in this text box. Email and I will gladly send them:

Dear All,

On 6 June 2006 our youngest grandchild was born in Oxford. This was the photograph I took that evening:
Inline images 1
That same morning I was giving the opening keynote address to the North European Conference on Travel Medicine (NECTM 2006) in the great hall of the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh. My subject was the urgency of facing down the denialists who were delaying remedial action to mitigate the worst effects of man-made global warming. You can read the address here:

Since then the predictions of mainstream climate science have been been shown to be, if anything, conservative. And the denialists, with a few exceptions, have become even more entrenched, and even more influential. The general public continue to think, contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence, that the science is still in some kind of doubt.

That baby is now nearly seven and here is the picture I took recently of him playing the one-string guitar he says I helped him to make:
Inline images 2
Since 2006 I have completed a BA Humanities with Literature First Class from the Open University and done a lot of acting and singing. In other words, I am not an ‘environmentalist’. Certainly no more than I am a ‘photographer’, or a ‘woodwork hobbyist’, and certainly much less than I am a grandfather, father, husband… In fact I am an ordinary human being who is desperately worried that we are missing our chance to save humanity from a terrible danger.

What I have decided to do is to hire the main hall at Alton Assembly Rooms for 7.30pm on Wednesday 16th January 2013 when I will repeat the talk I gave on the little boy’s birthday, word for word and slide for slide. Lesley and I are paying all the expenses it will be entirely free. Do come, and do read the talk first if you want to. I read it from time to time myself and stand by every word. I am also going to send invitations to as many celebrity denialists as I can think of. I don’t suppose they will come, because I don’t suppose they think we are very significant here in Alton.

I would like to prove them wrong about that.

Best wishes,

James Willis

Now the reason I quote Dr Willis’s letter because it contains so many of the tropes and rhetorical fallacies to which the climate alarmist movement is prey, all of them wrapped up in a blanket of warm caringness and noble altruism. To whit:

1. The copious cloying references to his grandson. Climate true believers think they have a monopoly on compassion. They think they are the only people who love their children and grandchildren or even stop to consider the plight of “future generations”. This gives them the moral authority to write surreptitiously malevolent, passive-aggressive emails to people they’ve never met and whose opinions they’ve never troubled to understand, accusing them of being “celebrity denialists.”

2. “Denialists.” I emailed Dr Willis to ask him what it was that these “denialists” were denying. I pointed out that this inflammatory term had been quite deliberately chosen by alarmist propagandists to equate scepticism about climate “science” and policy with Holocaust denial. Dr Willis replied: “I use the term denialist in the usual sense to denote someone who denies something. Not really very inflammatory, or puzzling.” So I wrote again to ask what exactly these “denialists” were denying. He replied: “Oh dear. I think you know exactly what I mean, James.”

3. “That same morning I was giving the opening keynote address to the North European Conference on Travel Medicine (NECTM 2006) in the great hall of the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh.” Read the speech – if you can bear it. As Dr Willis makes clear he has no specialist expertise in this field. But that’s not necessarily a problem – think mining engineer Steve McIntyre; think economist Ross McKitrick; think ex-banker Nic Lewis: many of the biggest most recent advances in our understanding of climate science have come from non-climate-scientists. What is more worrying, though, is how cursorily Willis has looked into the subject on which he presumes, nonetheless, to deliver a keynote lecture at an international conference. His sources? Wikipedia; the Independent; the BBC.

4. “Since then the predictions of mainstream climate science have been been shown to be, if anything, conservative…” etc  Evidence???

5. Well, you get the idea.

If only Dr Willis were just another harmless, elderly eccentric who’d got the wrong end of the stick. Problem is, I suspect he’s a lot closer to where the public still is in its understanding of “climate science” than I am. And if you want to know why that is, you only have to look at their sources of authority.

Here are two of them – TV’s perma-pout, smiley-boy astronomer Brian Cox and “comedian” Robin Ince (H/T Bishop Hill) – writing a New Statesman editorial explaining why we should trust the scientists who gave us the Hockey Stick, Glaciergate and 4-degrees-C-rise-by-the-end-of-the-21st-century computer model – and completely ignore all the evidence which contradicts them. But Cox and Ince are not alone. With them are: the BBC; the Independent; the Prince of Wales; Walkers Crisps; the Guardian; the New York Times; the Royal Society; Simon Singh; Ben Goldacre; every stand up comic apart from possibly Al Murray; every pop star; 99.9 per cent of all other celebrities; the Times; the Sunday Times; ABC; NBC; the CSIRO; the Australian government; Tim Yeo; Lord Deben; the UK government; the EU; the UN; the Obama administration; Big Wind; the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; RIBA; London Zoo; the British Antarctic Survey; the National Academy of Sciences; Sir Paul “Pnurse” Nurse; Ed Begley Jr; Galadriel from Lord of the Rings; Leo Di Caprio; Knut the dead baby polar bear; the Sierra Club; Coldplay; the WWF; Glastonbury Festival; George Soros; Richard Branson; Tim Flannery; David Suzuki; Michael Moore; Radiohead; Mackie’s ice cream; Alex Salmond; Mikhail Gorbachev; the Hon. Sir Jonathan Porritt; Julia Gillard; Build-A-Bear; your kids’ schoolteacher; my kids’ schoolteacher; the Miliband bros; Springwatch’s Chris Packham; Wikipedia; everyone in DECC save John Hayes; everyone at DEFRA save Owen Paterson; Dara O’Briaaiaann; Richard Bacon, PhD.

Not one of the people or institutions on that list above, I think it’s accurate to say, has the remotest understanding of what it is that climate sceptics think or why it is that they might have very excellent reasons for thinking it. This, I would suggest, means we have a very serious problem on our hands.

On a personal level, it’s a problem for us climate sceptics because it means we find ourselves continually being vilified – and denied airspace or funding or preferment – on the basis not of what we actually believe and say but on a grotesque caricature version thereof, whereby we are made out to be somehow anti-science or corrupted by money or ideology. (I think the technical term for this is “projection”)

On a broader, economic, socio- and geo-political level, it’s a problem because it means that public policy continues to be hijacked by environmentalist ideologues who have successfully foisted their junk-science, anti-capitalist, self-loathing, misanthropic, hair-shirt propaganda on a credulous public – with results that are already proving disastrous for us all.

Am I angry with these scumbags? You bet I am. Do I think they deserve the unpleasant epithets I cast at them? Absolutely not – they deserve insults far nastier and more graphic than I could ever get away with delivering in a family newspaper.

Yes, I know there are those who think I sometimes go over the top in the way I sledge the opposition. But this is not a criticism I’m going to buy – or ever will buy. Did Churchill ever issue a wartime directive that, following complaints submitted by the German embassy in Dublin, soldiers should refrain from singing hurtful songs about Herr Hitler’s monotesticular status? Not as far as I can recall. In war, all is fair game. When the other side behaves badly, it deserves to be called on it – in the most explicit terms possible – not excused on the dubious grounds that if we’re a bit nicer to the Imperial Japanese Army and don’t draw any nasty cartoons depicting them with buck teeth and thick spectacles maybe next time they’ll desist from tying wounded prisoners to trees and using them for bayonet practice.

As I argue at the end of Watermelons, there’s only one side in this debate which considers it acceptable or desirable to:

Rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.

And it most definitely ain’t the people on my side of the argument.

Related posts:

  1. Men fight for their ‘mates’ — it is the secret of why they so love war
  2. I’m learning to fight my demons: One man’s struggle with depression
  3. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  4. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain


George Osborne and the Budget of Meh

Osborne is not stupid…

From George Osborne’s Budget speech:

Renewable energy will play a crucial part in Britain’s energy mix – but I will always be alert to the costs we are asking families and businesses to bear.

Environmentally sustainable has to be fiscally sustainable too.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment was established by the previous Government.

It is cumbersome, bureaucratic and imposes unnecessary cost on business.

So we will seek major savings in the administrative cost of the Commitment for business.

If those cannot be found, I will bring forward proposals this autumn to replace the revenues with an alternative environmental tax.

Gas is cheap, has much less carbon than coal and will be the largest single source of our electricity in the coming years.

And so my RHF the Energy Secretary will set out our new gas generation strategy in the autumn to secure investment.

I also want to that ensure we extract the greatest possible amount of oil and gas from our reserves in the North Sea.

We are today introducing a major package of tax changes to achieve this.

We will end the uncertainty over decommissioning tax relief that has hung over the industry for years by entering into a contractual approach.

We are also introducing new allowances including a £3 billion new field allowance for large and deep fields to open up West of Shetland, the last area of the basin left to be developed.

A huge boost for investment in the North Sea.

If this is the best Gideon can do it’s no wonder the markets have responded with a yawn of supreme indifference. This isn’t a Budget for growth. It isn’t a Budget for the squeezed middle. It’s a Budget of meh.

Osborne is not stupid. (At least not totally so). He knows damned well that renewables are a hopeless waste of space and money. He also knows as the second bit intimates that Britain’s abundant shale gas supplies are by far our best hope for a secure, clean, cheap energy future.

Unfortunately, he faces at least two major problems. One of them is the Guardian/green/Lib-Dem/BBC nexus, which is being given carte blanche to continue with its mendacious, junk-science claims that “fracking” and shale gas production represent some kind of major environmental threat. Last night’s lamentably misleading coverage of the issue last night on BBC Newsnight was a case in point. Nick Grealy, explains here why it was so bad.

The other problem is that though in private Osborne can sound as red-meat a conservative as Maggie Thatcher in her prime he entirely lacks her cojones.

It really, really, really isn’t difficult explaining why renewables are a disaster area and why shale gas and nuclear are our only hope of keeping the lights on and the economy alive. If Osborne needs a few tips may I recommend an excellent book. No, not Watermelons though obviously I highly recommend that one too. I mean Power Politics by Michael J Economides and Peter C Glover. A good starting point might be the section headed Ten Fracking Things Everyone Should Know. And then maybe The Myth of Viable, Industrial-Scale Renewable Energy.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Budget for growth’? Wot budget for growth?
  2. George Osborne’s New Eco-Bullingdon Club
  3. Just what is it that greens like George Monbiot find so offensive about prosperity, abundance, happiness?
  4. We need to talk about wind farms…


Why Money-Printing Is like ‘Global Wwarming’

Sceptical of printing money

Yeah, that’ll work…

Here’s a must-read post by Aussie blogger Jo Nova – and it’s not on her usual topic climate change. The title says it all: The Ground Zero of Global Corruption: it starts with The Currency.

It’s like this. The governments and their central banks make as much free money from thin-air through fractional reserve banking and other methods as they can get away with — it benefits those who “spend that new money first”. They spend it at current prices, and pay it back later, after inflation has decreased its value. The people who pay the difference are those who saved and held money while its purchasing power fell. Speculators grow rich, while retirees and savers get poorer.

In a free market this would quickly lead to inflation, and people would rush to the only currencies the government can’t inflate (or “print” for free)  — they’d buy and hold gold or silver and keep their purchasing power. Remember, gold and silver are the currencies that evolved in the marketplace over the last 5,000 years and are not directly under the control of government. (And “so?” you say?). The point is, if the prices of gold and silver rise fast, people would abandon bonds and get into metals instead, thus correcting the situation by making the printing and speculating game vastly less attractive while saving and production became more attractive. Essentially, people dump the government money and go for the competitor, which means the government (and or Fed) has to increase the interest rate and pay more for its money, and nobody wants that: God forbid that Governments or Banks should pay people a fair rate for borrowing “their” money.

Bonds and “treasuries” (US Treasury Bonds) are fancy words for loans to the government. But if no one wants to buy them, then the government has trouble raising funds for its massive pork barreling vote-buying schemes, and the investment bankers pay higher interest payments which takes all the fun out of Grossly Huge and Obscene Mergers, the SubPrime Parties and the High Frequency Festivals.

I had a similar awakening a few months back when I went to see Detlev Schlichter talk to a small group of (somewhat terrified) MPs about his book Paper Money Collapse in a meeting organised by the Cobden Centre. Here is Schlichter explaining why Ben Bernanke’s, George Osborne’s and the European Central Bank’s money printing experiment will only prolong the depression.

Economies are not growing because of the massive imbalances that have accumulated as a result of years and decades of cheap credit. A cleansing correction  – in balance sheets, state budgets and debt levels – is urgently needed. Present policy doesn’t allow it. So the economy won’t grow.

He’s right, of course. But how do I know? I’m not, after all, an economist any more than I am a climate scientist, so why do I feel that I am qualified to comment? Why, for that matter, does Jo Nova?

I riff on this theme quite a lot in Watermelons – or Killing The Earth To Save It (Connor Court), as it’s called in the Australian edition, which I shall be shortly visiting Oz to publicise. You should read it. There’s a great section in which my old Kathy-Bates-in-Misery admirer Blobby is invoked and where I liken myself to the Robert Redford character in Three Days of The Condor (“He reads”). Anyway, all is explained there, so I’m damned if I’m going to give myself RSI regurgitating all the best bits here. Suffice to say, yes I am an Interpreter of Interpretations. It’s what I do and do well. I should have a card printed, one day.

But why should climate sceptics also be sceptical of money-printing, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and gold and silver market manipulation? It’s a question Jo has pondered too.

If you wonder how corruption in climate science could be connected, look no further than Climate Money. Without the printing presses running flat out at the Fed, which politicians would have had the luxury of glorious schemes to control the weather? How could they hand out grants to send, say, aquariums on tour to warn of impending storms? Underneath it all, if large financial institutions were not looking forward to a brand-spanking-new $2 Trillion market to trade carbon, who would have found millions to install 70 foot Carbon-Clocks, 50 page science reports and to donate and push into “green” education campaigns? Funny money makes for funny decisions. Shame no one is laughing.

If real people had to earn real money, investment bankers would need to make real decisions, scientists would have to find real evidence, and politicians would have to come up with real reasons.

Exactly, Jo. Welcome to the Austrian School – the only economic education worth having right now.

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy
  3. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

One thought on “Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’”

  1. Philip Neal says:23rd March 2012 at 9:23 pmWhat you say here may well be right, but as one free market, less government conservative to another I appeal to you not to make a big issue of questions which divide our side. In Watermelons you rightly argue that the Green ideology isn’t really about science at all, that the heart of it consists of economic fallacy about limits to growth, the nature of scarcity and the relationship between wealth and knowledge. You will do much better to focus on areas where the Left is hopelessly wrong rather than arguing about exactly which free market school – Austrians, monetarists etc – has the exact truth. Also, there are right wing cranks aplenty with fringe views about central banks, gold and so on: propagandists on the other side would like nothing better than to tar you with that brush. You are a polemicist and one of the best in the trade. Please concentrate on attacking the enemy.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

In Praise of Patrons – Particularly Mine

God, I enjoyed my book launch party last week. (Though not as much as some people, eh, Toby?) So much so that I’m not sure I can ever forgive myself. I keep thinking not of the fun I had but of all those friends I wish could have been there but weren’t. My fault, totally, in most cases: I’m horrendously disorganised when it comes to party invitations — and it’s entirely possible that you’re one of the people I love most in the world but forgot to invite because, hey, I’m just a bit useless that way.

Anyway, this party. As you’ll probably be aware — and if not let me spell it out — the launch was for — the launch was for this incredibly readable, well-researched, funny but also ‘serious and significant’ (says Matt Ridley in The Spectator — and who I am to disagree with so distinguished an expert in so important a publication?) book I recently published. It’s called Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future.

I think the main reason the party went so well was that, invitations apart, I had nothing to do with the organisation.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. In praise of peer-review on Amazon
  2. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  3. Lib Dems: now even less popular than the BNP
  4. Loyal American children break into spontaneous praise of the Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama

17 thoughts on “In praise of patrons – particularly mine”

  1. Nige Cook says:23rd March 2012 at 7:43 pm“I keep thinking not of the fun I had but of all those friends I wish could have been there but weren’t. My fault, totally, in most cases: I’m horrendously disorganised when it comes to party invitations … When at school I learned that even a talent as great as Shakespeare could only make ends meet by fawning before toffs like the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton I remember being appalled. But as I grow older and wiser — and the times grow more difficult — I realise that there is nothing shaming or unfair about patronage. It’s merely an honest acknowledgement of how the world works. … I’m less overjoyed by the simultaneous deaths of my two main sources of income — publishing and print journalism — but even here I think there are grounds for cautious optimism.

    “At my launch a friendly City type and his charming wife told me how interesting they thought my life was. I in turn told them how much I’d like their money.”

    This pandering to Mammon will infuriate the miserable self-deluded commies who frequent your website.

    Remember, James, that proper lefty Marxist liberalism insists that money is dirty, greasy stuff you’re far better off without. True happiness is abject poverty. If you were a billionaire you’d waste the rest of your life cruising the Caribbean, watching sunsets while sipping Martinis and complaining about boredom.

  2. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 11:46 amHere’s a poster for you to display at your next book launch (not).
  3. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 3:39 pmAnd here’s another…
  4. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 4:15 pmDear James,

    I know you will cite the Met Office as being part of some anti-libertarian plot to install worldwide Socialist governance but, will you please do us all a favour and suspend your belief in conspiracy theories just long enough to take on board some new information:

    “A project running almost 10,000 climate simulations on volunteers’ home computers has found that a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is ‘equally plausible’ as a rise of 1.4 degrees. The study addresses some of the uncertainties that previous forecasts, using simpler models or only a few dozen simulations, may have over-looked. Importantly, the forecast range is derived from using a complex Met Office model that accurately reproduces observed temperature changes over the last 50 years. The results suggest that the world is very likely to cross the ’2 degrees barrier’ at some point this century if emissions continue unabated. It also suggests that those planning for the impacts of climate change need to consider the possibility of warming of up to 3 degrees (above the 1961-1990 average) by 2050, even on a mid-range emission scenario. This is a faster rate of warming than most other models predict.”
    Citizen science looks at future warming uncertainty.

    N.B. The ability of these computer models to recreate historical trends over the last 50 years is not evidence of fudge factors having been applied: It is evidence of model validation, which – along with calibration and sensitivity analysis – is an integral part of establishing the accuracy of such modelling techniques. You can – or should – trust me on this because, unlike you, this is what I have been doing for the last 20 years or so (i.e. using probabilistic computer modelling in environmental risk assessments).

    Your beloved marketplace of ideas is a dangerous fallacy; of which your success in getting your ill-informed unscientific opinions plastered all over the media and infecting people’s minds is profound evidence. And for what purpose? You may think you are acting in the public interest but, unfortunately, like everything else in Watermelons 2.0, this is an inversion of reality: As Peter Jacques (University of Florida) has pointed out, it is precisely because environmental scepticism is not in the public interest, the tobacco industry invented the sound science versus junk science debate (now being used to great effect by the fossil fuel and energy industry) to confuse people and prevent sensible regulation of their product.

    1. Eworrall says:31st March 2012 at 9:35 amAnyone can retrofit fit any curve by adding enough adjustment knobs to the model , but fitting an old data series is no guarantee of predictive skill. And a model which requires a monster supercomputer array to run has a lot of adjustment knobs.

      Predictive skill is the test of the validity of a theory. And so far, the predictive skill of climate models has been a flat bust. The most likely explanation for this lack of skill, despite decades of research, is that they have selected the wrong forcing (CO2) as the dominant driver of climate.

  5. Angus says:31st March 2012 at 9:05 amGeneral Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support From Heartland Institute
    I am sure James will have a tantrum over this.
  6. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:44 amPublishing has a huge influence over our lives and James has a great platform over us as publishers pay him money to write articles. Does James really care what he writes about as long as the cheques keep rolling in?
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 12:57 pmThe Warmists have all the big money – multi billion dollar WWF, Greenpeace, EU climate budgets, as well as all the national backing for Climate Change efforts, such as the new UK Climate Change Fund. Even big oil can’t compete with that kind of money.
  7. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:53 amThis denial is complex, involving a variety of defensive response from the familiar ‘climate change is a myth’ to the more understandable (but ultimately no more useful) ‘but I need my car for my job’. It is of course no coincidence that the same people who are deeply wedded to high fossil fuel use . . . are the ones most likely to deny the reality of climate change . . . there is nothing so difficult as trying to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. This is classic denial: no one wants to hold a mental image of themselves as bad or evil, so immoral acts are necessarily dressed up in a cloak of intellectual self justification.
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 12:58 pmI wonder how much money the CRU scientists would get if politicians were convinced that Climate Change is not a threat? It would certainly be the end of their multi million pound government research grants.
  8. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 1:52 pmEworrall – “all the big money” doesn’t really mean very much. They don’t exactly have a pot of money sitting around in a bank account. And what do you mean by “compete”. What is the competition here? Do you mean in convincing people about the truth about global warming? OK, unfortunately it is a bit of a competition, but what I don’t understand is how you can set it out so rigidly . . . We don’t want people to believe in manmade global warming . . . why is that helpful? To protect certain interests? To protect human intectualism? Because you have a deep seated love of the ‘truth’. I just can’t see why you would get so passionate about it unless you were earning a nice crumb from embracing denialism. Good luck to you.
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 6:33 pmI’m glad you think hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, for Warmist propaganda doesn’t really mean very much. I’d like to be that rich.

      As for why I am a “denialist”, the reason is simple – I believe, from reading the Climategate emails, and my own research, that Warmist climate science is corrupt, and that the CO2 theory is persisting for political rather than scientific reasons.

      I also think that if you guys truly get the upper hand, more than you have already, a lot of people will die. There are already casualties thanks to biofuel policies – even the UN admits that biofuel subsidies are exacerbating the risk of famine. . Making energy more expensive, through expensive renewables programmes, would kill even more people – all for a cause which is based upon scientific fraud.

      A lot of people died in the 20th century because of scientific fraud. I’d like to avoid repeating that mistake, if possible.

  9. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:56 pmEWorrall – I think for a few billion dollars is not really here or there when the national US defence budget was over $600 billion in 2010. There will of course be mistakes made along the way as we feel our way into the right policies. Interestingly enough – how many people die in car accidents every year? Cars are not only polluting our planet but killing our citizens in accidents everyday in a more direct way. I just can’t believe scientists/politicians have come up with some elaborate giant fraud – life is too short.

    1. EricW says:6th April 2012 at 6:28 amCar accident casualties are not a justification for ignoring the consequences of policies which cause mass famine in the third world. The famine can be alleviated with the stroke of a politician’s pen, while car accidents are a more intractable problem.

      As for scientists getting it wrong or behaving fraudulently, it unfortunately happens all the time. The scientific method, with it’s standards of openness and reproduceability, was developed to try to prevent episodes of mass delusion. When the method is abused, by scientists concealing data and trying to suppress critics, then science becomes dysfunctional, and theory is no longer verified by facts.

      Such abuse is institutional in the dysfunctional climate science community.

      Note I am not saying the Climategate scientists dont believe in global warming – their problem is they believe too much. Since they already know

      1. EricW says:6th April 2012 at 6:36 amA climategate email you might find interesting – Mr. Smith tries to pressure Ben Santer into revealing method and data behind hid models.

        Climategate Email 1233326033.txt

        > The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
        > “The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness
        > of scientists to:
        > 1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and
        > replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data,
        > procedures and materials.
        > 2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted
        > with more complete or reliable experimental or observational

        1. Eworrall says:6th April 2012 at 6:52 amBen Santer is finally forced to publish some of his data. He still does not publish his method. He feels the need to write an apologetic email to colleagues in the climate science community.

          Climategate Email 1229468467.txt

          > I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
          > a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act
          > (FOIA). McIntyre asked for “Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
          > climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,
          > Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
          > troposphere”. I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.
          > McIntyre’s request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
          > Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested
          > records are to be provided to the “FOIA Point of Contact” (presumably at
          > NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.

          > Over the past several weeks, I’ve had a number of discussions about the
          > “FOIA issue” with PCMDI’s Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL
          > colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these
          > discussions, I have decided to “publish” all of the climate model
          > surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the
          > tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to
          > upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of
          > Climatology (IJoC) paper.

          > After publication of the model data, we will inform the “FOIA Point of
          > Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
          > available for bona fide scientific research.
          > Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional
          > misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.

          >This will make it difficult for McIntyre
          > to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the
          > climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.

          1. Eworrall says:6th April 2012 at 7:06 amBen Santer reveals he wants to hoard method and data secrets because he sees other scientists outside his group as “competitors”, instead of welcoming fresh viewpoints in his search for truth. This attitude seems to be common in the Climate Science community, which is what I mean, when I describe it as dysfunctional.

            Climategate Email 1231257056.txt


            Can any competitor
            simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed
            full scientific analysis of these datasets?

Comments are closed.

Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe! | James Delingpole

March 1, 2012

As regular readers will no doubt be aware, Sir Paul Nurse is easily my favourite Nobel-prizewinner after Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama. All right, so he got his award for genetics rather than (as the others did) services to world peace. But in no wise does this diminish my respect for the many wondrous things he has achieved, not just in medical science, but also in the fields of political activism, self-promotion and tendentious TV documentary making.

Which, of course, is why I have been so concerned these last few months for the state of Nurse’s reputation. First, of course, there was that string of boo-boos he made in his BBC Horizon documentary, Science Under Attack,  in which he set out to make fools of people he branded “deniers” only to end up proving himself significantly more ignorant of the complexities of climate science than the “deniers” were. Then came Andrew Montford’s devastating report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation on how Nurse (and his two predecessors Lord Rees and Lord May) had destroyed the integrity of the once-great Royal Society by transforming it from a scrupulously neutral scientific body into a “policy-driven quango.” To add insult to injury, poor Nurse was dismissed thus in an introductory essay by Professor Richard Lindzen:

The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.

That’s why I was so delighted to learn that Nurse had been given the chance to rescue his tattered credibility by giving this year’s Dimbleby lecture. And sure enough he managed to do so, with all the deftness of Paul Daniels doing a card trick (in his pre-bandsaw days), nay with the dazzling legerdemain of a balloon dancer hiding her rude bits at Madame Jo-Jos.

Here’s how he did it. (H/T Neil Craig who has also noticed at this blog, most disrespectfully titled Sir Paul Nurse slithers) He cunningly pretended that instead of being one of those political activist scientists who had aggressively pushed the threadbare theory of man-made global warming onto an unsuspecting, gullible audience who thought men with Nobel-prizes and white lab coats could be trusted, he had in fact been a scrupulously neutral party all along.

The key passage is this one:

The majority of expert climate scientists have reached the consensus view that human activity has resulted in global warming, although there is debate about how much the temperature will rise in the future. Others argue that warming is not taking place at all or that it will happen in a catastrophic way, but they have failed to persuade the majority of climate experts, who have judged the scientific arguments made to support these more extreme views as being too weak to be convincing.

Can you see what he’s doing there? Blink and you’ll miss it. So let me explain. Nurse is ingeniously mischaracterising the debate on AGW as being one between two extreme parties: on the one hand are these imaginary people (anyone know any? I certainly don’t) who argue that “warming is not taking place at all” and on the other are these ones who believe that this anthropogenic warming will happen “in a catastrophic way.” And somewhere in the middle, apparently, is balanced, reasonable Nurse.

Well, I hesitate to accuse a man whose integrity I admire so greatly of lying, but, isn’t he being a little – ahem – economical with the actualite here?

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it’s happening but that it’s open to debate how significant it is then doesn’t this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they’re worth?

After all if the “science” of AGW were still, so to speak, “unsettled” then clearly it would be madness, not to say despicably irresponsible, of organisations like the Royal Society to urge policy prescriptions in order to deal with a problem which may actually not even exist.

It would be nice to think that having narrowly escaped being written off by future historians as yet another of those junk science eco-loons who helped foment what I describe in my book Watermelons as “the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history”, Nurse will now stick to what he knows best: proper, falsifiable, empirical science – as opposed to post normal science and left-leaning activism.

But this paragraph of his speech persuades me that he may not have learned the error of his ways just yet:

Today the world faces major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate change, global health and making economies sustainable, all of which need science. It is critical for our democracy to have mature discussions about these issues.

“Making economies sustainable”, eh? As Homer Simpson might have said: “Nobel-Prize-winning geneticists: is there ANYTHING they can’t do?”

Related posts:

  1. Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo boo
  2. Meet The Sceptics: another BBC stitch-up
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch

4 thoughts on “Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe!”

  1. Nige Cook says:1st March 2012 at 10:59 pmHubris. Politics is what you get when you professionalize anything, and it’s fatal to nascent science.You get a breed of greasy-pole climbers awarding each out prizes paid for by blood money (Crimean War dynamite).You get the BBC always treating these famous bigwig’s patronising polemics like the word of God.


  2. Nige Cook says:3rd March 2012 at 8:44 amJames, please at some stage write a post about the latest UAH global lower troposphere mean temperature data point for February 2012, it closely matches January’s and it really seems to indicate a COOLING setting in: please note that all this satellite microwave mean tropospheric data is biased in favour of EXAGGERATING temperature rises, because it includes heating at the tops of clouds, which plays NO PART in ice cap melting, sea level rises, etc. Hot air expands and rises, cool air contracts to higher density and descends (Archimedes’s buoyancy principle). The hot air at the tops of clouds doesn’t mix downward very well because of this.the IPCC models assume that the additional humid air over oceans (due to CO2 temperature rise) is able to absorb IR and get hot, without buoyantly rising to form cloud cover which shadow and cool the altitudes below the clouds. The tops of clouds will be hotter than the land and sea under the clouds (simple shadowing due to cloud cover). If this data is simply an average over all altitudes, it will be biased against cloud cover (shadowing) effects, and won’t accurately indicate the mean surface temperature. the IPCC models assume that the additional humid air over oceans (due to CO2 temperature rise) is able to absorb IR and get hot, without buoyantly rising to form cloud cover which shadow and cool the altitudes below the clouds. The vapor absorbs sunlight IR, heats up, expands, rises like a hot air balloon, then condenses into clouds at cooler altitudes.

    The H2O positive feedback assumed in all IPCC models seems at odds with NOAA humidity data:

    However crackpot you think this looks, it’s actual data. Not tree ring proxies spliced with heat island data and then with some satellite data tagged on at the end where it helps fabricate a hockey stick curve. Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al. used tree ring proxies up to 1960, direct temperature station data from 1960-80, then satellite data after 1980. Temperature only one variable determining the tree growth rate; others are cloud cover (photosynthesis), and rainfall. Second, direct temperature data from 1960-80 was biased by expanding “heat islands” (cities) for many weather stations. The satellite data is at least consistent and reasonably direct, although it is biased, not the mean temperature under cloud cover.

  3. Nige Cook says:5th March 2012 at 6:37 pmWhat Nurse should be doing is getting the BBC to kill anti-nuclear witchcraft hysteria which pretends that 100% of natural cancers after exposure to radiation are caused by radiation. The early nuclear pioneers tried to do this, but were shouted down by Jane Fonda’s Hollywood scam the China Syndrome and related propaganda.Dr Alvin M. Weinberg (nuclear reactor engineer), “The Second Nuclear Era”, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 59, no. 10, Dec 1983, pp. 1048-59 (quotation below from pp. 1055-1056):

    “I am not exaggerating when I say that our Western society, for reasons that are unclear to me, suffers from massive hysteria. It is not entirely unlike the witchcraft hysteria that swept through Western Europe for 200 years beginning in 1494. The analogies are really quite similar, as was first pointed out by the ecologist William Clark. Children got sick, cattle died, crops failed, and people were puzzled: Why did that happen? Obviously, because witches hexed them. Fully a half-million people, mostly women, were executed during that period because they were bona fide witches. And then, in the year 1610, the Inquisitor in the south of Spain put together an advisory committee, and said to the advisory committee: What is the epidemiological evidence for a connection between these witches who are casting their spells and all these bad things happening? And his committee got together, and they considered the matter, and they made a report, and they concluded that they could find no connection between how many witches were killed, or whether the witches were there or not, and all these bad things happening. The Inquisitor did not forbid executing witches. All he did, after due consideration and consultation with many members of the hierarchy, was to forbid the use of torture in extracting confessions from witches. And the result was that witchcraft fell precipitously. … I am not prepared to say that all the environmental insults are simply witchcraft; some of them, of course, are not.”

  4. Nige Cook says:7th March 2012 at 9:05 amWe live in a Wilson cloud chamber: it is how climate is regulated. For graphical proof, see New Scientist editor Calder at: more cosmic rays, the more ionization trails for clouds to form in the low pressure air of the mid troposphere:Lots of cosmic rays -> lots of ion trails -> lots of cloud cover -> cold

    Few cosmic rays -> few ion trails -> little cloud cover -> hot weather.

    The Science Museum in South Kensington used to have a giant Wilson cloud chamber, where you could watch the cloud trails from cosmic rays actually forming before your eyes. Cirrus clouds form at 15,000 to 20,000 feet, i.e., in the middle of the troposphere. They are enough to tip the balance by shadowing lower altitudes, and produce the climate changes.

    Water vapour molecules absorb wideband infrared, so the sunlight filtered through water will tend to lose the far red end of the spectrum, and appear slightly bluer. Condensed water vapour (cloud droplets) scatter light effectively and appear white in colour.

    Cosmic rays don’t do any heating, a dose of 1 Gray (100 rads) is only 1 Joule/kg, so if they directly drove climate change, we’d be dead from acute radiation poisoning every time a cosmic flare occurred.

    They merely trigger the condensation of water vapour (which saturates very easily in low pressure air) into cloud droplets which reflect back sunlight to space, rather than absorbing infrared as water vapour does. It is a catalytic action. The catalyst does not provide any energy itself. It is merely the trigger for a process that cools the earth by reflecting away sunlight.

O Canada Our Only Hope

Related posts:

  1. Sporting triumph at school is even sweeter than the smell of napalm in the morning
  2. Scouting keeps us in touch with a bygone age
  3. If I could go back in time to my Oxford days, I’d warn myself against idolising Cameron
  4. Australia commits suicide


God, I’m brilliant!

Like my esteemed colleague Dan Hannan, I have a pathological aversion to posting up videos of myself on my blogs.

In this case, however, I feel I must make an exception. It’s not often you get to appear on Uncommon Knowledge being interviewed by the mighty Peter Robinson. (Our subjects: Climategate; Watermelons; the imminent collapse of Europe)Peter Robinson is the uber-poised, uber-intelligent, uber-civilised (well he did go to Ch Ch) commentator, broadcaster and former Reagan aide who as a young man scripted the “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Brandenburg Gate speech in Berlin in 1987. He’s the co-founder of the US conservative website Ricochet which contains some of the most brilliant writing in the entire blogosphere and fabbo podcasts too including one mysteriously called Radio Free DelingpoleHe’s also a fellow of the Hoover Institution – an island of immense conservative soundness set in a vast ocean of liberal sanctimoniousness at Stanford (aka “The Farm”) University, in Palo Alto, capitol of Silicon Valley, in the People’s Republic of California. His Uncommon Knowledge series is pretty much the most distinguished political discussion programme you’ll see on TV because – thanks to Peter – it still exudes that otherwise vanished gravitas which used to be a commonplace in the days of Face to Face or Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation.Normally, Peter interviews hommes serieux like  Thomas Sowell , outspoken MEP Daniel Hannan, and the late great Christopher Hitchens.Hell, though, Robinson’s too smooth by far and it’s about time he did some proper slumming.

Related posts:

  1. I’m on a cruise with lots of rich, conservative Americans. And it’s brilliant
  2. British Gas boss announces brilliant new scheme to make Britain even more expensive and ugly
  3. Global Warming: the Guilty Men
  4. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.

2 thoughts on “God, I’m brilliant!”

  1. Nige Cook says:17th December 2011 at 11:36 amWith all due respect, James, God already KNOWS you are brilliant, so you don’t need to remind Him in the title of a blog post. You will start sounding a little bit arrogant to the lefties unless you make a big acting scene of being more humble and diffident.

    Also, Dan Hannan MEP speaks his mind in videos, amusing the lefties like the brown man:

    But the Uncommon Knowledge interview IS brilliant.

  2. Vincent Jappi says:25th December 2011 at 3:06 pmRon Paul accused of being “raaaaaaacist” for allowing THIS to be published in his name?

    “The Ron Paul Political Report, 1992

    “The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.

    “Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too enraged to pick the victim’s pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores targeted by the mob because they “exploited the community,” i.e., sold products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay.Worst of all, we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal anarchy.

    “In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt’s, a jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

    “Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians.

    “The criminals who terrorize our cities–in riots and on every non-riot day–are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against “The Man.” And “The Woman.’ A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): “I hate you, white honkey.” And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I’ve never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

    “But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is “Eurocentric.” They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it…”

Comments are closed.

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

Breaking news:

Two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website.Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […] It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media


I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global


What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  2. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  3. Global Warming? Yeah, right
  4. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!

2 thoughts on “Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!”

  1. Gordonrear says:27th November 2011 at 5:26 pmQuote mining? Oh great Delingpole, is that how your science works? Oh look, here’s somemore quote mining…

    Keith Briffa “picture of the unprecedented warming over the last millennium or so”

    Andrew Kerr “a bleak future for the environment, already suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns to name just a few,”

    That’s why they look at the overall picture, that’s why the IPCC AR4 has over 1500 reviewers, that’s why they have a consensus amongst those in the field (something you will never comprehend), because scientists will have opinions, will agree and disagree, will argue, will debate. Why don’t you release your decade worth of private emails to the public, let the public start quote mining you on whether you’re just a half crazed wingnut.

  2. Archive Protocol says:28th November 2011 at 1:31 pm“FOIA” deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to forestall the impoverishment of humanity by another $37 trillion. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Comments are closed.