In praise of peer-review on Amazon | James Delingpole

October 19, 2011

Some people, I know, have a very low opinion of Amazon reviews. Either they’re written by friends of the author; or they’re written – under a pseudonym – by enemies or bitter rivals of the author; or they’re written by people who not only can’t write but can’t even read either: at least not in the sense of being able to absorb the nuances of a book and then comment discerningly thereon.

But I disagree. I think Amazon reviews are (generally) great, thanks largely to what you might call the “peer review” function.This means that whenever anyone writes something particularly crass or stupid, you can be fairly sure that some other doughty Amazon commenter will shoot them down in flames.

Here’s a glorious example of peer review in action with my book Watermelons.

First, a review from a man named Martin Lack who kindly hopes that the book will be “a total commercial failure” based on his idea of what he thinks the book may have said, though he hasn’t actually read it:

I don’t need to actually read this book in order to criticise it because James has very kindly summarised its content perfectly on his blog. (So no simple dismissals, please, on the grounds that I have not read it#). Unfortunately, for anyone objective enough to investigate, every single one of the completely stupid things which he there invites readers to imagine might be true can in fact be found to be false on any number of scientifically-literate websites.

In James’ amoral fantasy world, there is no cause and effect; no right and wrong. In his revisionist utopia, there is no right or left; there is only right and green. However, as someone once said, “all generalisations are wrong; including this one!” Therefore, even if environmentalism may be seen by many as a left-of-centre entity (although some scholars such as Roger Scruton and John Gray would challenge even this assumption*) it is ridiculous to suggest that all environmentalists are socialists in disguise.

All sparrows may be birds; but not all birds are sparrows! In point of fact, it is much more likely that, as the German Green Party suggested in the 1980s, “Greens are neither left nor right; they are out in front!” Therefore, no matter what Amazon may think (or people may say), I am not attacking the messenger (who undoubtedly has a perfectly good English degree from Oxford); I am attacking the message (which is totally without any legitimate foundation).

However, given that James is always trying to be funny, accepts he is incapable of reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and admits to being ideologically prejudiced against taking environmental protection seriously (i.e. as a “libertarian conservative”), it would be a very dangerous thing indeed for anyone to mistake as serious, sensible, or objective, anything said by James Delingpole in this book. It is utterly infantile in its misconception of reality; and dangerously so. Therefore, I hope it is an absolute unmitigated commercial failure; our planet certainly deserves it to be.

# A potentially-valid criticism of this review might be that I have only alluded to evidence to back up my hypothesis (rather than presenting that evidence). However, that does not mean the evidence or the websites do not exist and, in any case, as Ben Goldacre says in Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks, “You cannot reason people out of positions they did not reason themselves into” (page xii [2009 paperback edition]). Therefore, I would almost certainly be wasting my time (as if I am not doing so already) if I was to bother to elaborate further.

* See Scruton’s Chapter on ‘Conservatism’ in Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge (2006); and
Gray’s 2nd edition of False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (2009)

And now, the moment of retribution at the hands of first of Octavius 1:

“I don’t need to read this book in order to criticise it”…

And this is why your review means nothing.

And then, more thoroughly, from Magnumfore:

You know what’s puerile, Martin? The fact that you admit that you base a scathing, irrelevant review on a paragraph-sized summary of a book and then accuse your challengers of being the same. THAT is puerile. You disregard any of his potential sources, documents, or evidence in such a dismissive wave of the hand because it’s plainly obvious that you’re one of those climate goons who is so locked in his own hubris pseudo-science that, at this point, reading any legitimate criticism (or any criticism whatever!) of your so-called cause raises your hackles and, much like Mr. Occidental Petroleum Al Gore himself, refuses to take in or engage in any debate on the topic.

Your position on the book based on a summary only punctuates what I’ve written above, placing a huge exclamation point at the end.

Want to be taken seriously? Read the book, follow the sources, check the studies, THEN come back and say it’s all hogwash without a single grain of truth.

But you won’t do that because you’re like so many other climate goons brainwashed into thinking 0.036% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is serious business when it’s been 15 times higher in human history and as high as 30% in world history…and plants and animals were still growing and we’re still here.

But ignore all the conflicting evidence at your peril.

Related posts:

  1. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  2. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process
  3. In praise of patrons – particularly mine
  4. More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not.

10 thoughts on “In praise of peer-review on Amazon”

  1. Anonymous says:19th October 2011 at 8:28 pmIt has been a similar story with Donna Laframboise’s book: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.

    In this case the expert on the book who had not read it is a climate “scientist” with a snout/trough interface:

  2. Anonymous says:20th October 2011 at 12:21 amTranslation of. Lack’s terminology

    Objective – taking one’s prejudices seriously
    Scientifically literate – expressed as gobbledegook to confuse
    amoral fantasy world – not 1984
    revisionist – not socialist
    environmentalism – like all isms, a form of OCD
    perfectly good English degree from Oxford – jealousy
    without any legitimate foundation – see “amoral fantasy world”
    peer-reviewed – liked by Lack
    infantile – without sophistry
    my hypothesis – breach of copyright
    Ben Goldacre – approved bigot (cogn Billy Bragg)

  3. Anonymous says:20th October 2011 at 7:29 amReligious fanatics dont need the facts before they launch into criticism. Their faith guides them.
  4. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:11 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
    1. Velocity says:28th October 2011 at 5:24 pm“..lying and over exaggerating..”
      You’ve pretty much summed up Govt, the UN’s IPCC and their crony climate change scientists (sizzling sensationalists) …and they’ve been at it for over 10 years

      “..lowest form of life..”
      Yep all forms of Govt and its crones are the very toilet of humanity and eevry country

      Hung yourself with your own rope there stupid

  5. NC says:23rd October 2011 at 8:46 pmMartin Lack was leaving ignorant comments on this site earlier this year. He wrote that he was doing a masters in environmental stuff, but if he thinks he can leave book reviews without reading the book first, then I won’t be wasting my time reading his thesis.

    You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, James. It’s best just to accept that people who are right are always hated irrationally by those who are on an ideological crusade to promote some kind of left-wing or right-wing money wasting scheme, in the name of protecting the environment.

  6. Velocity says:27th October 2011 at 9:57 pmThe internet is a wonderous thing… dozens sometimes hundreds of brains can usually solve any problem and, bad news for con artists like climate change crones, expose any lie

    Yes there’s a large noise to signal ratio and you have to search for the diamonds. But isn’t that true of mainstream journalism which has never peddled so much trash and lies in its actually pretty appalling (and in the main dishonest) history

    It’s also exposed alot of journalists not only to superior and sharper brains but tough cross examination of anything sloppy or badly researched. Previously journos could gob off freely without retort except for the odd angry readers letter.

    The web has shaprened everything up massively …although TV and newspapers remain aloof in their ivory towers (probably why they’re still total garbage)

  7. Jack Cade says:4th November 2011 at 8:54 pmI must say, it’s very satisfying to see that the half-witted Delingpole gets so few comments on his blog (aside from fellow mouth-breathers). Just dropped by to sneer at the imbeciles. Shan’t bother again. Dullest blog this side of Boil An Egg With Delia.
  8. Gordonrear says:5th November 2011 at 12:30 pmIt’s funny Delingpole praising peer review on a comments page of an online shopping site after viciously attacking the scientific world’s peer review process. For all we know, the dimwit probably wrote half the praises himself, the other half written by wingnuts and fruitloops who buy into any conspiracy. Still, if that’s what he calls his peers….
  9. Gux says:24th November 2011 at 9:39 pmThe photo remark in this blog is racist and an insult for Amazon natives. I wonder if Delingpole knows where the Amazon is, and I wonder whether he knows that is one of the 7 wonders of the world and that it is worth preserving!

My incredible Big-Oil-funded life | James Delingpole

My perfect life: funded by Big Oil

As you all know by now, my Evil Climate Denialism (TM) is funded by Big Oil. That’s why I don’t have to waste any of my time scrabbling around doing new blog posts any more. I just lounge around quaffing MDMA-laced Cristal from 17th century Venetian glass while my harem of Estonian nubiles giggle coquettishly as they speculate excitedly on which three of them are going to play the “jeegy-jig” game with Mister James today. Then I have some foie gras. Special extra-cruel foie gras as supplied to me by the Koch Brothers ultra-lux rare breed torture farm. Because that’s the kind of guy I am.

Anyway, I wanted to share with you some interesting correspondence generated by a sceptic who is much, much nicer than me called Russell Cook. I write about him in Watermelons:

Let me cite, by way of illustration, the work of a man from Phoenix, Arizona, named Russell Cook, who describes himself as “a complete nobody”. One day Cook set himself the task of tracing the “funded by Big Oil” story to its source—and he discovered some interesting facts. One was that Ross Gelbspan, “Pulitzer prize-winning reporter” (as he was described by Al Gore and several others) has never won a Pulitzer Prize. Another was that the blanket smear about the alleged corruption of science under the direction of the fossil fuel industry can be traced to just one line of one memo, produced as part of a public relations campaign by the coal industry in the early 1990s with the aim of showing—not unreasonably, you might think—that the debate on AGW was anything but settled.
On this wafer-thin foundation, the environmental movement has managed to construct almost its entire propaganda edifice.

What does this tale prove? On its own, very little. Cook—a graphic artist, not a scientist or a reporter—is just another ordinary citizen who has harnessed the powers of the internet to find information which, a decade or two ago, might well have remained buried. The “funded by Big Oil” meme would have spread through endless repetition. And no one would have been in a position to question it.
But now they can. Anyone can. Out there right now are hundreds if not thousands of Russell Cooks tapping away on their keyboards, following hunches, satisfying their idle curiosity, not taking “no” for an answer, and generally living up to the motto of the (now sadly discredited: see next chap-ter) Royal Society “Nullius in Verba.” Take no one’s word for it.

Anyway, here’s Russell in action again – this time engaging, very politely with a Warmist professor at Oxford called Myles Allen. And getting somewhere:

Prof Allen,

No doubt you are receiving both praise and harsh criticism about your Guardian article yesterday. I have a more basic question to ask regarding the disservice being done science when politicians such as Gore tell the public that criticism or questions asked about the conclusions of man-caused global warming by skeptic scientists should be ignored.

You do agree that this is a larger if not egregious disservice than Gore’s attempts to equate extreme weather to AGW, do you not?

Al Gore has famously said that skeptic scientists are in the pay of fossil fuel companies. He pointed that out most notably in his movie near the end, comparing their efforts and an alleged leaked coal industry memo to older efforts by tobacco companies hiring so-called experts to sow doubt about the harm of cigarette smoking. Gore has quoted both the tobacco memo’s words, “Doubt is our product” and the coal industry PR campaign memo – spelled out full screen in his movie, “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”.

Did you know you can find the Brown & Williamson tobacco memo in its full context on the internet within mere seconds of starting a search for it?  Did you know the “reposition global warming” memo cannot be found in its complete context in a single magazine or newspaper article, or book, or web site where accusers quote it for proof that skeptic scientists are corrupt and untrustworthy?

Are you aware this bit of so-called ‘proof’ is the singular source for that accusation, that not a shred of evidence has otherwise been found to prove skeptic scientists have received payments from fossil fuel companies accompanied by instructions to fabricate false climate assessments? Does it not trouble you that no less than IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele relied on a person who repeats this unsupportable accusation when he claimed in a 2010 Guardian  article “Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics”  and that he called for people to ignore a prominent US skeptic scientist last month based on this same accusation?

These aren’t superficial talking points I toss out, these are from my own 21+ months of research into the accusation, I wrote about van Ypersele’s recent accusation relative to his ties to Greenpeace here  “Climate Science and Corruption”   and I’ve detailed Gore’s contradictions in his own accusation narrative here  “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?”  As an ordinary citizen, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. I have no expertise to say which side is right on AGW, thus I expect scientists to work out their contradictory observations and accurately report on what the situation actually is. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen’s reply:

Dear Mr. Cook,

I personally don’t feel it is particularly relevant where people’s funding comes from. The accusation that sceptic scientists receive money from fossil fuel interests is just as irrelevant as the (probably more frequent, and even more laughable) accusation that mainstream climate scientists like myself only find the results we do because we are in the pay of governments who want an excuse to raise green taxes.


Now I think if I’d been Cook, I would have been a lot snarkier in my response to Prof Allen’s ludicrous straw man claim. Fortunately Cook is made of politer stuff:

Prof Allen,

Indeed, what you say is true. It is entirely possible that an otherwise reprehensible scientist who is a tax cheat, animal abuser, spouse beater, and receiver of money from the Russian mafia could still conceivably write a paper that upholds a critical aspect of AGW.  We are in thorough agreement on that, I believe.

The critical problem here is that a large portion of the population has been led to believe by politicians, policymakers, and enviro-activists that (alleged) fossil fuel funding of skeptic scientists renders them completely untrustworthy. As a case in point, I asked the spokesperson of the largest electric utility corporation in New Mexico for their opinion of Fred Singer’s NIPCC 2009 report in relation of their decision to suspend their membership to the US Chamber of Commerce over the Chamber’s skeptical viewpoints on global warming. The spokesperson replied that her company agreed with a national US news program repeating the words of three scientists from Climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton who said the NIPCC was “fabricated nonsense.”

You see the problem there? An electricity provider to several million people relied on a single media source for a literally unsupportable accusation.

To the best of my knowledge, the funding sources of AGW scientists is not the primary point of concern of skeptics, but rather that AGW is not a settled matter in the face of skeptic science assessments. Careful examination widespread AGW narratives indicates accusations about the funding of skeptics is the overriding reason used for telling the public to ignore skeptics. Besides IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele’s recent repeat of this unsupportable accusation, Michael Mann said of Sherwood & Craig Idso in a 2003 ClimateGate email to a reporter:

“An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information.”

Again, I applaud your efforts to point out distractions which undermine the understanding of science. If you truly strive to reach that goal, will you write another Guardian article telling how Gore does a disservice to scientists by accusing one side of corruption in the face of no evidence to prove it?

Here’s Professor Allen again, clearly a mite uncomfortable about the correspondence. (Hence his remarks about the cc list: I know what he means – if I were a Warmist I wouldn’t want my letters going straight to Morano either. It would be like sending your children swimming with great white sharks). Still, fair play to Prof Allen for replying.

Dear Mr. Cook,

And a large portion of the population has been led to believe that climate scientists as a community massage their results for political or self-interested ends. Unfortunately, two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not deny that there is legitimate social science to be done analysing the scientific process, but much of the “evidence” in this area, on both sides, seems to me to be largely anecdotal — it is not a field I work on, so I don’t think I would have much to add to what has been said already.

We should probably not drag lots of busy people into an e-mail debate — apologies to the cc-list.



Cook writes back:

Prof Allen,

I do thank you for the time and consideration you’ve taken to respond. You of course had the option to remain silent, as many on the AGW side have done with my direct questions in the past, so I do appreciate your responses.

With all due respect to your first sentence, I am tempted to ask what evidence you base the assertion that ‘a large portion of the population’ has even heard about, much less ‘believes’, such accusations leveled at AGW scientists. I’ve read extensively in opinion commentary that the rest of the world accepts AGW with the US lagging behind, having perhaps only half of the population as non-believers. Now, your statement appears to have one of two potential explanations:  ‘a large portion of the population’ has actually heard the accusation that AGW scientists are politically or monetarily motivated and have dismissed it out-of-hand, or else the population you speak of is instead a significant minority.

You see how the situation might prompt social science questions here. If indeed a sizable portion of the population does not believe AGW scientists alter data for self-gain, what then prompted you to make such a statement? My underlying question – after having asked so many politicians, policymakers, and environmental journalists about the justification to proceed with GHG regulations in the face of apparently legitimate criticism – is why I receive literally nothing but evasive answers, combined with outright efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists.

Long story short, I’ve done this since 2005, with a greater frequency after 2008. To have a lead author of a GHG regulation bill in Washington state tell me he considered and rejected skeptic scientist assessments, and fail to tell me which specific ones he rejected and for what reason, is simply amazing. To have a prominent board member of a society of environmental journalists tell me the corruption of skeptic scientists has been documented by many journalists starting with Ross Gelbspan, and then fail to tell me specifically who the others were, is inexcusable. To have a reporter of an ocean acidification devastation article be unable to tell me what the overall oceans’ pH level is, or another reporter refusing outright to tell me who actually quantified the ‘scientific consensus’, is inexplicable.

You are of course under no obligation to write another article on the Gore politicization problem that threatens to vastly undermine public opinion of AGW. I included Dr Curry and Mr Lynas in this as I’ve written to them before on the same topic, particularly in regard to Dr Curry’s appearance on the US PBS NewsHour program, which has had IPCC scientist guests on for a combined total of 14 appearances, and not a single skeptic scientist to view his assessments. Curry and Lynas have expressed concern about the politicization of the issue, and your 9/7 Guardian article certainly implies that the AGW issue may be needlessly eroded by political twisting of weather observations.

I’d think if Al Gore takes on the appearance of having libeled/slandered skeptic scientists, you’d view it as even more critical for him to either cease and desist on that tactic, or bring out irrefutable evidence of skeptics’ guilt.

Professor Allen, increasingly terse:

I repeat, two wrongs don’t make a right. The whole issue of who is motivated by what is irrelevant. I don’t care if the author of a paper I am reviewing is an “IPCC scientist” (whatever that is) or a “skeptic scientist” (which we all are) or has horns and a tail: I care if they have done their stats right. Myles

And Cook:

We are in agreement on that fundamental point of the irrelevancy of funding, and I trust that you do care that all scientists get their info right. This, however, is not a common ground shared by legions of loyal followers of Al Gore, who repeat in viral form that skeptic scientists should be shunned.

What I am driving at is that you opened the door by noting how Al Gore overplays an arguably smaller aspect of the issue. In presenting you with links to my own detailed articles pointing out a larger disservice Gore is doing to science with his apparently unsupportable corruption accusation, I leave it to you, as a scientist trying to pursue proper overall analysis of the global warming phenomenon, to decide whether you feel it is necessary to point out this larger problem.

Al Gore, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, and most recently IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele, say skeptic scientists operate in a tobacco industry-like conspiracy with fossil fuel companies. If you yourself cannot readily find proof that such a conspiracy is actually taking place – money given in exchange for false fabricated climate assessments, how do you react this problem?

Ignore it, or describe how it is not good to make conclusive statements without supporting evidence? This seems to have been exactly what you did with Gore’s extreme weather overreach, and is entirely the reason why I’ve written to you.

Dr Curry used a quote from someone else in her email response to you about “misinformation is being actively promoted by the fossil fuel lobbyists and their growing multitude of dupes and minions.” What assurance do we have that enviro-activists, along with their ‘dupes and minions’ are not the ones skewing the AGW issue, considering their portrayal of skeptic scientists as crooks while oddly refusing to show their central bit of evidence – those 1991 coal industry memos made famous by Gore and Gelbspan – in their complete context?

It’s the terrier-like tenaciousness of amateurs like Russell Cook which is ultimately going to win the Climate Debate. That’s because, much as men like Myles Allen might be loath to admit, this debate has long since ceased to be about science. It is about politics, spin and arguments from authority. The Warmist establishment has the bluster, the money and the big institutions, that’s for sure. But ultimately, these are going to be no match for the little guy with a lap top and a ruthlessly polite regard for the naked truth.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables
  2. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  3. Money Well Spent
  4. Climategate: the whitewash continues

20 thoughts on “My incredible Big-Oil-funded life”

  1. OctoFisty says:11th October 2011 at 7:35 pmI want my diamond encrusted codpiece meself. Complements my six boxing gloves nicely, methinks.
  2. mackintosh says:11th October 2011 at 7:50 pmwill have to read this excellent post a few times to absorb it all.Thanks James
    1. commonsensemajority says:11th October 2011 at 8:14 pm+1, great post JD.
  3. cremaster says:11th October 2011 at 8:59 pmYou can always tell quality, even if you are not entirely au fait with the details. As mackintosh says, this article repays more than one reading, and it’s clear this Russell Cook is one sharp-minded fellow. It’s no wonder that the professor was so intimidated.
  4. BenfromMO says:11th October 2011 at 9:02 pmVery well said. Great read and worth the time. Although I would find it hard to believe that Dr. Allen is not “a team player” so to speak, his frankness is appreciated. Indeed, this became a political arguement after the IPCC became political starting at IPCC v. 2. (1996)Ever since then, scientists have been removing themselves from that process and going in other directions since the science was taken over by people who had political agendas so to speak and as such rather…and as such most of the other scientists just went their own directions into things that mattered to them. The science is anything but settled today….I should note here that most scientists involved in CAGW are probably unwitingly only doing what their “patrons” want them to do, in this case studying the “effects of warming”. This means of course that most scientists who put out work do not make a claim on CAGW in general, but just make studies that say this: “If we warm by X, this is the effect on this aspect of the planet.”Nominally, we all realize that if we do not warm by X, then this research means nothing as it is predicated on that assertion and as such if we only warm by what we did in the 20th century, or if we do not warm at all, or if we cool, this research is worthless and a giant waste of time.

    But the real problem with science in general (which is where corresponding with the team scientists so to speak is so important..) is that without this team being dis-lodged and an end to this pointless political back-talk going in both directions, none of us should do anything but question every aspect of the science and read it carefully and inbetween the lines.

    The politicalization will only get worse as more sceptics get involved and realize what is at stake. If it was only a couple billion a year on research, well that is not the end of the world if it focuses on how we can adapt. Sure, that research can be used in the future if we do ever warm up.

    But the fact that our society is going to be forced to be changed to such a large extent due to this research, we should all be very very concerned.

    And this is why this correspondance is important. The talking to scientists involved in “detecting the human-footprint” will make them realize over time that this argument over CAGW will be over in several years as the warming fails to materialize. Even convincing people of small things works over time to show people that there can be science after the end of CAGW. Science survived the piltdoown man fraud, and I hope it can survive this.

    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 6:01 amIMO they already know the game is up. But the longer they can string it out, the fatter their pension pots will become, and the more speaking fees will be collected. And some paymaster players have sunk so much time and money into trying to convert enormous wealth into dictatorial green political power, they just don’t want to let go.
  5. OF says:11th October 2011 at 10:34 pmBig Oil – in the shape of British Petroleum and Shell at least – does fund one side of the climate debate (see foot of this page):
  6. Russell Cook says:12th October 2011 at 1:47 amMyself, I simply thank James for listening to a guy who is nobody in particular. In case anybody needs more reading material on my narrow focus, I have my online blogs and articles at this ‘borrowed page’ link:
    1. Russell Cook says:10th July 2012 at 4:47 pmTalking to myself now…. but I must, because the link I refer to in my comment above for the Climate Gate Country Club web site has gone non functional, so I had to borrow another site’s page to place my articles and blogs about the ’96-to-present-smear: please see
  7. NC says:12th October 2011 at 10:03 amBig oil won’t fund or do objective climate research or publicity, any more than the nuclear industry will research and publicise the dose rate effects in radiation. They have the big budgets that could resolve the problems, but there are “conflict of interest” problems. People in charge of big industry are intrinsically greasy pole climbing political expedients who can’t organise unbiased research, and don’t want to get involved in it for fear of being accused of a conflict of interest. This is illogical, because it’s in their interests to commission research into the fact that we don’t live in a “greenhouse” with a glass ceiling that prevents evaporated water turning into cloud cover with negative feedback on temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. (All IPCC models assume that water evaporation has a purely positive feedback from wideband absorption of infrared by water molecules, not reflecting droplets!)
    1. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 11:51 amThe biggest joke is the same Greens who accuse opponents of being in the pay of big oil themselves discussed taking money for research from oil companies.Climategate Email 0962818260.txt… Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
      agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
      partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
      conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
      after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
      asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
      etc. By email? In person? …

      1. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 2:59 amThe very first carbon trade of all was conducted by BP under the direct tutelage and guidance of Lord Browne, and he helped to craft the present framework of the IPCC and the system of derivatives trading known as emissions reduction marketing which in turn was based on the work done to craft same in the making of the Clean Air Act of 1970, part of Nixon’s legacy beside nifty cameo appearances while President on the “Laugh-In” Show.Odd how the following site has had only 80-odd hits as these satellites are the only real quantifiers and empirical behaviour trackers of climate related phenomena in existence truly covering GLOBAL phenomena at all levels of that Zombie cocktail we call our atmosphere. that those doing the real work are completely ignored. If you read the mission statements, this is the ONLY way the issue can be resolved one way or the other. Hansen, BTW, has no part in the conduct of this set of missions. There is a scientific conflict-of-interest clause in his contract that keeps him light-years away from these workers which works in the same way that prevents bankers from proposing certain types of tax legislation directly.
  8. Anonymous says:12th October 2011 at 2:48 pmMagnificent piece. Wish your editor would allow you to include this much drilldown on the DT site.In any event, the green movement and global warming will not even be on the radar screen in a year’s time, folks. They still debate outing themselves to see if they can aspire to popular hero status; the Rob Wall Street At Camera Point bowel movement was just testing the waters.
  9. powerplant says:12th October 2011 at 3:06 pmThis is how Al Gore and Paunch Awry and other greentards would have edited the earthquake in DC if given the job to do so. pressure LOL!
  10. powerplant says:13th October 2011 at 3:03 amThe satellite OCO-2 is the one tracking the carbon in the atmosphere for the VERY FIRST TIME IN HISTORY EVAH. And it ain’t even been launched yet. :>p
  11. Gordonrear says:14th October 2011 at 11:45 amNot to worry Mr D, nobody believes you are funded by big oil. You’re just a useful idiot for them.
    1. Octofisty says:14th October 2011 at 2:47 pmGordon’s arse, you are simply a complete idiot of no use to anyone.
  12. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:12 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
    1. Petunia Pig says:21st October 2011 at 12:50 amI’ll bet you say that to all the girls, tee hee.
    2. Russell Cook says:2nd November 2011 at 3:18 amMr Fourie – we have a blog here a bit over 2600 words in length, and the best you can come up with is “don’t read anything this man says”?L’il bit of advice: If I was you, I would not quit my day job for a new career in proselytizing.

ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A Conversation with James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

Watch it on

Related posts:

  1. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  2. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  3. Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism
  4. 24 Hours of ManBearPig

6 thoughts on “ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: a conversation with James Delingpole”

  1. Gordon says:5th October 2011 at 10:09 ammanbearpig, watermelons and climategate are about the only three words delingpole can manage. words like positive feedback, interglacial cycles, thermodynamics etc will utterly confuse this man who doesn’t do science.
    1. Holly Bromley says:24th October 2011 at 5:36 pmYour argument is proof that you have not read his book. Give it a read then come back and make an intelligent argument.
  2. Drew Spencer says:6th October 2011 at 3:25 pmAhh the same old “he doesn’t do science” argument. James is an established ‘journalist’. You can’t even find the shift key, mate.
  3. Gordonrear says:10th October 2011 at 1:58 amOK, an established mickey mouse journalist (blogger) who doesn’t do science or objective truth whose vocabulary is limited to manbearpig, watermelon and climategate. Happy mate?
  4. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:13 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
  5. JB says:25th October 2011 at 9:42 amJames does exactly what he condemns in this video, he distorts evidence. I don’t feel he’s interested in open debate unless it furthers his career. If you read his articles he’s more than happy to skew information, to suit his own agenda. Even if it could be proved 100% that global warming was manmade, he would still deny it. As pretty much is whole career is based discrediting everything, and anything that could be related to and with global warming.Such as writing over emotional arguments based almost entirely on his view that wind farms are vulgar. And according to him have a negative impact on the environment where he takes his country walks. He only seems concerned about the environment if it affects him personally;

    James and his followers have their heads stuck in the sand, resist and don’t want to accept change. Regardless of which team regarding global warming you are on. The fact is fossil fuels are a finite resource that is becoming more and more expensive to produce. Why not then invest in new technologies that make use of abundant energy sources such as sun, wind, wave etc. Not necessarily to save the planet, but to create jobs and new industries.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

UN Reveals Its Master Plan for Destruction of Global Economy

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

More dangerous than Al Qaeda

Former US secretary to the United Nations John Bolton once famously said: The [UN] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. (H/T Milo)

But I’d say Bolton was being too modest in his aspirations. Far too modest. I’d suggest that if we lost all 38 stories the benefits to mankind would be almost incalculable. Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the worlds economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 and you’ll see what I mean.

The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion–that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion–steering the global economy onto the path of green growth.

But Green growth as the report more or less acknowledges is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat Climate Change, of course.

Here’s the kicker:

Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context. (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarlycross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.

What’s amazing about this stuff and believe me, there’s plenty more where this came from is the unblushing shamelessness with which it advocates this economic insanity. Here is the world’s most powerful intergovernmental institution essentially arguing for the destruction of the global economy, enforced rationing, Marxist wealth redistribution, greater regulation, the erosion of property rights and global governance by a new world order of technocrats and bureacrats. And being so upfront about it they actually issue press releases, telling us what they’re planning to do and encouraging us to write about it.

This is the thing that amazed while I was researching my book Watermelons. If the global green movement is any kind of conspiracy, then it’s a conspiracy in plain sight. The people in power who are advancing its agenda–be it President Obamas house eco-activists John Holdren and Carol Browner, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and all those faceless apparatchiks at the UN and the EU–make absolutely no bones about what it is that they want to do to save the world from the peril of Climate Change: the end of Industrial Civilisation.

Which might be just about understandable if the crisis we were facing were so great that only the most extreme measures would suffice. But the crisis they describe is non-existent. As I argue in the second half of my book, economic growth and true environmentalism as opposed to the sick, bastardised, warped, hair-shirt perversion of it currently being dumped on us by the Greenies go hand in hand.

As economies grow richer, so they have more money to set aside for cleaner rivers, fresher air, as well as to invest in R & D projects for ever more eco-friendly forms of energy. Its no coincidence that quite the worst environmental damage in the last century was done in those countries behind the Iron Curtain. Free market economies tend naturally to be cleaner and healthier because clean and healthy is what people choose anyway if they can afford it. They don’t need government to step in and take their money in order to spend it inefficiently trying to achieve something which would have happened quite naturally anyway.

What this ludicrous UN report is advocating is the exact opposite of what the world needs if it is to become genuinely greener. All those people in the developing world, if they’re to live healthier, less environmentally damaging lives, the very last thing they need is hand-outs from richer economies. What they need are property rights and free trade and the chance to grow their economy to the point where cf. the Kuznets Curve they can afford the luxury of having to breed fewer children and to heat and light their homes without having to chop down the nearest trees. What they also need for us in the rich West to have thriving economies in order that we can import more of their produce.

Rationing and limits to growth are not the answer. The UN is a menace and we listen to its eco-fascist ravings at our peril.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. The global economy is collapsing. The solution is not more media studies graduates
  3. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  4. The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability…

2 thoughts on “UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy”

  1. Jakob Unger Jr. says:14th July 2011 at 8:22 pmJames, if you spend enough time delving through the voluminous UN publications, you come to the crux of this madness. The UN wants to reduce world population by 90%. Nine out of Ten of us must die, in order to “save the world”. Agenda 21, “Communitarianism”, UNESCO, and many other UN plans are thinly veiled preludes to genocide.
  2. Marina says:15th July 2011 at 6:41 pmI’ve downloaded today the report from the UN website and I can’t find two of the quoted texts in your article:“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)
    “For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

    They must have edited it, this is the title of the one I’ve downloaded:
    World Economic and Social Survey 2011
    The Great Green Technological Transformation

    Is this the one you refer to?

Comments are closed.

Sorry, but Wind Farms Are Useless Even against Vampires

Flyers! The wind turbines have broken down. Again! said Caleb.

Alicia tested the blade on her throwing knife, which she could throw faster and more accurately than any man on the Watch, because that was the kind of woman she was. A strong woman. A fearless woman. Honed and lithe and taut and brilliant at rescuing you from the vampire-infested Mall on horseback with her special riding skills when all seemed lost though God knows what they were doing going into that Mall in the first place something to do with a room full of dead children which some other character in the book had been perversely attracted to, what kind of weird reason was that? The kind of strong female character, in fact, whos absolutely de rigueur for you to create if you’re an English professor at Rice University in Texas who’s slumming it in genre fiction, yet at the same time not slumming it because look what you can do you can treat the reader to SO much detail about the world you’ve created that its like reading Dickens almost, no, like Dickens with icing and cherries and hundreds and thousands on top because not even Dickens would go into so much detail about what the characters looked like, what they had for breakfast, their back story, their emotional history, their favorite color, their favorite character on Sesame Street, plus of course its got vampires, proper vampires, not your pussy vampires like the ones in Twilight but ones with so many teeth they rip you to shreds like torn up bunnies and –

Lish, get your taut, firm, desirable, simmering, as-yet-unfulfilled love interest ass over here NOW. The lights are down. The virals are over the fence. They’re aiiieeeeee.


As some of you will have worked out, I spent my return flight from the US reading half way through Justin Cronin’s bestselling vampire novel The Passage. I like vampires. Indeed, as I told my audience when I spoke at the Heritage Foundation if they didn’t want to hear me talk about Climate Change I would have been quite happy talking on another of my favourite topics, viz, why vampires are the scariest horror creatures of all, especially the Master in Salem’s Lot. But though Cronin’s contribution to the genre has its superb moments, I think I may have spotted one or two flaws in it as the above excerpt intimates.

OK, so here, as I see it, is the fundamental problem. The vampires have taken over the Earth. (Something like 42 million of them in the US alone. Ri-g-h-t. So what are they feeding on once all the humans and farm animals and wild animals have been killed? Have they suddenly, like, taken up farming or something? Perhaps this question is answered later in the book. If it isn’t then I’m sorry but I count this a serious flaw in the books schemata. As indeed I would if it turns out the vampires HAVE taken up farming. Yeah right, how likely vampire behaviour would that be?). In the second part of the book we’re 90 years into the future after the vampire apocalypse, with a tiny colony of humans which have survived in their fenced settlement.

How have they survived in their fenced settlement? Why, because it is surrounded by bright lights which they turn on at night to scare off the vampires. How are these bright lights powered? Why, by wind turbines.

Look, I can just about buy the conceit that indestructible, multi-fanged, voracious leaping vampires have taken over the earth. (With those superpowers how could they not?) But what stretches the book’s credibility far, far, FAR beyond breaking point is the idea that a) those wind turbines would still be operable 90 years into the future (they last 20 to 25 years at most) and b) given that they operate intermittently and at roughly 25 per cent of capacity that they would be capable of giving the survivors colony round-the-clock electric power.

Heres the truth: wind farms do not save you from vampires (or anything else). If wind farms are really all that stands between the survival of the human species and bloody, fanged extinction then we’re doomed, I tell you, we’re doomed.


It has been brought to my attention by a very senior editor oh, all right: Damian that the Telegraph Blogs Stylebook insists that no mention of Wind Farms is permissible without a reference to Britain’s most distinguished Wind Farmer Extraordinaire, Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt. I apologise for having to rub salt into the wound of poor Sir Reginald who would no doubt prefer to be recognised as the father-in-law of the current British prime minister rather than just another of those rent-seeking landowners leeching off the back of the taxpayer by destroying the landscape with ugly, bird-chopping, heavily subsidised windtowers. But what can I do? Orders is orders.

Related posts:

  1. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  2. Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands
  3. I don’t need my ice cream to ‘educate’ me about the glories of gay marriage or wind farms
  4. Build Wind Farms in National Parks? Now we’ve REALLY lost the plot

Frogs, scorpions, greens, lies… | James Delingpole

June 29, 2011

Thanks to the miracles of modern technology etc this post comes to you courtesy of an American Airlines flight 30,000 odd feet over the US on my journey to the Soviet Socialist Republic of California. I’m going there to address some of the few remaining sane people there who haven’t yet been driven out by the state’s bonkers fiscal and regulatory regime, or been driven to destitution by measures to protect the Snail Darter de nos jours – an obscure fish called the California Delta Smelt.

I’ll try to keep this a short post because laptops play havoc with my neck. And because of where I’m headed, I thought I’d pay tribute in this one to LA resident Phelim McAleer co-author – with Ann McElhinney – of the Not Evil Just Wrong documentary debunking CAGW.

McAleer is kind of the anti-Michael Moore: using similar guerilla video techniques but against the liberal-left rather than in support of it.

His most recent coup was to ambush Josh Fox the documentary-maker responsible for an eco-propaganda movie called Gasland, whose key scene is the one where a man in Colorado turns on his tap, strikes a match, and – lo! – it catches fire. We are invited by the film to believe that this is an unfortunate side-effect of the shale gas process known as “fracking.” It is visual short hand for: shale gas is evil. Problem is, the scene is misleading in the extreme.

You’ll find a pretty good summary of the story here (ow my neck)

Last week, well-known Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer showed up to a screening of Gasland in Chicago with a couple of straightforward questions for the film’s star, Josh Fox.

In particular, McAleer was interested in Josh’s take on the by-now famous scene in Gasland of Mike Markham lighting his faucet on fire – you remember the one, right? It’s the scene that enabled Fox to sell his film to HBO in the first place. But it’s also one that has been debunked – flatly and frequently – by regulators in Colorado. Heck, these guys even went so far as to issue an official document on official state letterhead tearing the film to shreds, citing Josh’s distorted representation of the Markham well as exhibit A.

So all McAleer wanted to know is whether Fox is aware of the substance of those rebuttals. Is aware that the vertical shaft of Markham’s water well “penetrated at least four different coal beds” before making contact with potable water. Is aware that a 1976 report from the Colorado Division of Water Resources cites “troublesome amounts” of “hydrogen sulfide, methane, iron, fluoride and sodium” in local water wells in this area, well before oil and gas development commenced. That kind of stuff.

Fox’s response? Sure, he’s aware of all that evidence – how can he not be? So why didn’t he include mention of it anywhere in his film? “I don’t care about the report from 1976,” Fox replied. “There are reports from 1936 that people say they can light their water on fire in New York State. But that [has] no bearing on this situation. At all.” According to Josh, the fact that methane was present in water long before oil and gas activity is “not relevant” to the question at hand.

It also reports on the equally significant aftermath which is that, rather than fess up to his – ahem – error, Fox got his lawyers on the case and did his damnedest to keep footage of McAleer’s ambush off the internet.

And the question I want to ask here is: Why? It’s a “why” that applies equally well to almost everything to do with the modern environmental movement. Why, if the science is so “settled” and the case for putting the global economy on a war footing to “combat climate change” so strong, do they keep needing to tweak and exaggerate their message?

Why, as Greenpeace’s former head Gerd Leipold once famously excused  his organisation when it was caught out telling porkie pies on the extent of the Greenland ice sheet melt, do they have to “emotionalise the issue”? After all, surely if the issue is really what they say it is it wouldn’t need “emotionalising” with spin and lies and exaggeration and disingenuous camera footage: it would be plain for all to see and we’d all do something about it.

Let me answer my rhetorical question. In almost every case the facts simply do not support the Green movement’s extravagant claims. When, for example, the Prince of Wales jets in with his entourage to Rio to announce that we have 100 months to save the world from Climate Change, he is talking out of his princely posterior. If no action whatsoever were to be taken to deal with “climate change”, does anyone honestly believe that in 83 months time (if my adding up is correct) the world would not be functioning as well as ever? (Better in fact, because there’d be fewer wind farms and fewer eco-regulations hampering the global economic recovery).

Just recently, in case you missed the good news, carbon prices have tanked on the European exchange: (H/T GWPF)

EU carbon prices have slumped 15% in one week, as a slew of bearish news took its toll on the markets. “It’s just been carnage these last few days,” said a trader at an investment bank in London. “There has been a huge amount of liquidation from funds, banks and utilities.” Mark Lewis, a Paris-based analyst at Deutsche Bank, said he does not expect emissions in the ETS to ever return to their 2008 levels of 2.12 billion tCO2e

And there’s a reason for that: you can fool the public some of the time and you can fool the media an awful lot of the time but what you can’t do for very long is fool the markets. Markets deal, ultimately, with reality. The environmental movement is a religion which deals with anything but.

Related posts:

  1. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  2. There’s nothing greens love more than a nice, juicy oil-spill disaster
  3. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs
  4. What is it that greens like Jonathan Porritt so LOATHE about nature?


Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt? | James Delingpole

June 27, 2011

Talking dog poop

Whoever eventually wins the US Republican presidential nomination one thing is as sure as eggs: it won’t be a candidate who takes the wrong side on “Climate Change.” (H/T Climate Depot)

Mitt Romney didn’t understand this. He was under the unfortunate impression that it is one of those safe, bi-partisan issues where you can demonstrate how reasonable and electable you are by adopting an accommodating centrist position. And this is why, as Rush has correctly noted, his presidential aspirations are toast.

Jon Huntsman, slightly more canny, has been frantically trying to dissociate himself from his previous position as an ardent supporter of Cap N Trade. “It wasn’t me. The big boys made me do it,” he has been saying. Or words to that effect. But this probably the equivalent of a bourgeois intellectual in 70s Cambodia trying to rough up his hands before Pol Pot’s security police come round: too little, too late.

Best showing so far has been from Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, both of whom have made an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency one of their first priorities.

Here’s Bachmann:

“Every time liberals get into office they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects,” Bachmann said. “What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get rid of job killing regulations; and I would begin with the EPA because there is no other agency like the EPA, it should really be renamed the ‘Job Killing Organization of America.'”

She is right, of course. And to all those other prospective Republican presidential candidates who have yet to understand why she’s right – among them Texas Governor Rick Perry, I hope – let me explain it using my favourite revolting analogy to do with the suicidal idiocy of misguided centrism: the Dog-Poop Yogurt analogy. (Apologies to readers already familiar with this one: I used it first about David Cameron’s dismal “Conservatives” in a piece for the Spectator). (And again with reference to the noisome Chris Huhne)

OK, so imagine there are two types of people in the world. There are kind like me – and you, I would hope – who like to eat their yogurt plain or with bits of fruit in it. But there is also out there, another kind of person. Lets call them the Greens because that is who I mean. They want to change the world; they want to shake the status quo to its very foundations. They believe that if we carry on as we did before, cleaving to our decadent traditions and selfish, pleasure-seeking lifestyles, then the world will end. And that’s why, as part of the radical, hair-shirt lifestyle shifts we need to adopt if we are to save the planet, they believe the time has come to end our bourgeois, running-dog lackey addiction to unsustainable fruit-flavoured or plain yogurt. What we need to do instead is flavour our yogurt with something more bracing, more radical, more alternative, more organic; something besides which has the virtue of being as cheap and abundant as the wind and the sun: dog poop.

“But hang on”, say all we fruit- and plain-yogurt lovers. “There’s a reason why we eat our yogurt either plain or with fruit. And the reason is, it tastes nice. Whereas if you put dog poop in it, it will taste like ****.”

“Typical,” say the Greens. “We hear this from your side all the time. You’re too selfish to change your ways. You’re addicted to fruit. You want to stick your heads in the sand and ignore all the evidence that fruit and plain yogurt are unsustainable.”

“What evidence?”

“Well for a start look at the supermarkets. Every day they sell tubs and tubs of the stuff, feeding the public’s insatiable greed, encouraging reckless consumption of dairy produce which comes from cows which not only take up precious land which could otherwise be set aside for biofuels but which also produce methane – an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Whereas, we have strong evidence to suggest that if yogurt were flavoured with dog poop instead, consumption might fall dramatically, leading people to enjoy much more healthy lifestyles and reduce their addiction to dairy products.”

“Doesn’t sound very enjoyable to me.”

“Well it’s not about your enjoyment. It’s about the children.”

“I don’t think my kids want dog poop yogurt either.”

“Generations unborn then. And the polar bears. And the California Delta Smelt. You’re going to be telling me next you don’t care about the California Delta Smelt.”

“Well now you mention it…”

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. And all those other RINO type quasi-ecotards of his ilk who imagine, somehow, that by positioning themselves in the middle they’re going to achieve the kind of consensus that will keep everyone happy.

“Suppose,” Romney is saying, “We just put a tiny bit of dog poop in the yogurt and mix it up with the fruit and the plain. That would work, wouldn’t it?”

No it wouldn’t. And even if half our political class don’t yet understand why it wouldn’t, an increasing number of the people who vote for them very much can.

The public understand that if there is no remotely convincing, proven link between Anthropogenic CO2 emissions and catastrophic climate change then there is absolutely no point in politicians formulating major, economy-destroying, landscape-blighting, liberty-crushing, tax-raising policy decisions on the basis that there is. Period.

More than that, as I argue in my new book Watermelons – yes, also available on Amazon – environmentalism is not some side issue which politicians can heed or ignore at their leisure: it is, in fact, probably THE most strategically vital political battleground of our age, the Helm’s Deep of Western Civilisation.

Why? Because it has become the liberal-left’s great proxy issue. Under the cloak of ecological righteousness, the liberal-left is seeking to advance its controlling agenda of income redistribution, property theft, taxation, regulation, government by democratically unaccountable activists and bureaucrats, state rationing and economic destruction, only couched in such a way as to make it seem caring and sensible and good. But the green movement represents precisely the kind of Big Government bullying which inspired the Tea Party. Any conservative who cannot understand this does not deserve the Republican nomination: not least because it means he’s not a real conservative.

Related posts:

  1. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  2. Romney’s Bad Judgement
  3. What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…
  4. Alfred S: Australian schoolboy; climate hero

One thought on “Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?”

  1. Jim of FL says:4th July 2011 at 6:12 amRomney is doing OK because its early, and he is staying in northern liberal areas of US. I expect TX gov Perry to enter on 7-4-11, which will not be good for Mitt. Also, Mitt will get a beat-down from Tea Party people as soon as he heads south. He will not be president.

The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet

Science settled on liberal folly.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

Today I am in New York on my publicity tour for Watermelons and as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics I found myself wondering – not for the first time – why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything.

“Because they’re stupid,” said a libertarian friend of mine.

“Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but…” I protested.

“No really they’re stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

Well, you know me: what a big-hearted, sensitive, caring, emollient kind of guy I am. I thought these words were harsh, really harsh. But that was before I saw this video.

It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T  Climate Depot)

Yes, that’s right.

They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.

Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think – and you’ve really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake – is as follows.

They think the main reasons for the public’s growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives – led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is “anti-science”.

My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: “I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true….”

Do you know, on that last point at least I totally agree with Chris Matthews. So let’s examine a few of the claims which he and his two guest liberal echo chambers made on Hardball.

1. The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought – given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.

2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.

3. With notable exceptions such as Fox news, US conservative talk radio, the generally right-leaning blogosphere and one or two papers such as Canada’s National Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Express (and increasingly, the Mail) there are few media outlets in the world which broadcast anything other than green propaganda. Far from being evil, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are islands of truth in a (presumably doomed, increasingly acidified) ocean of lies. (I’d be interested if Matthews could produce some concrete examples of these “lies” that Limbaugh and Beck have told on climate change).

4. Would that be “science” in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed “anti-science” because – with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled “Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt” – bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.

If we’re talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not “anti-science.”

Related posts:

  1. Why aren’t there more rewards for being right?
  2. Conservative blacks are fed up with being patronised by liberals and bureaucrats
  3. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  4. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya

20 thoughts on “The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet”

  1. Todd says:24th June 2011 at 12:36 pmYou should write for The Onion. That’s some of the best satire i’ve ever read.
  2. Peter says:24th June 2011 at 2:58 pmWhen I read this post, I honestly wondered whether the author actually believed what he had written, or whether the post was intended as an ironic demonstration of conservative stupidity.

    While intended to demonstrate how dumb liberals are, the author quotes his libertarian friend in stating, “No really [liberals are] stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

    However, here is the irony. That statement is more applicable to conservatives than liberals, making the entire article an exercise in psychological delusions and imposing the insecurities of one ideological community on its competition. Kinda the same way Fox News is always attacking the “mainstream media” for liberal bias when the truth is that Fox News is designed to appeal to conservatives, and therefore anything left of right, even when it’s in the center, is part of some evil conspiracy.

    Democrats listen to scientists and form their public policies based on what scientists tell them need to be done. Doing what the smartest guys in the room tell you to do isn’t dumb. It’s smart. Republicans, on the other hand, treat scientists with hostility if whatever the scientists say runs counter to what common conservative thought.

    Same deal with economists. In the past four years, Democrats have followed the advice of our nation’s smartest economists, who nearly unanimously warned that if action wasn’t taken, America would sink into a second Great Depression. Republicans advocates courses of policy which many economists came out as saying would stagnate and ultimately destroy the American economy. When President George W. Bush was presented with those choices, he was forced to pick between doing what was right for America versus what was right in terms of conservative thought. And he picked America. I know some of Congress’ top economists, and they’ve all told me the same thing. Liberals come to them looking for advice as to what policies would do America the most good, whereas conservatives come to them looking for advice as to how to make it look like their policies would do the most good. And this has apparently been a trend for decades.

    There is a reason the vast majority of scientists are Democrats. And it’s not because scientists are dumb. And it doesn’t have to do with feeling insulted because mainstream conservative America has an open hostility towards intellectualism and science. It’s because conservative public policy, in its current incarnation, contradicts what our brightest minds tell us needs to be done, and repeatedly uses every opportunity to advance ideological goals rather than advance intelligent public policy which will make America a better and stronger nation.

    Despite what the author implies, and what most conservatives believe, liberalism isn’t about taking a dump on America or freedom. Or ruining people’s lives. And being evil. In fact, true liberalism is nothing like what the conservative media paints it as.

    Modern liberalism is about true fiscal responsibility, which is more complex and intricate than one tax cut for the rich after another. What conservatives don’t want us to notice is that the debt we have today is in large part the consequence of the conservative economic policies of the past decade in which massive tax cuts were granted without being paid for, on the assumption that the stimulus of the tax cuts would produce higher revenue streams as the economy improved. This has been proven false. And it only costs us trillions of dollars to learn the lesson: conservative economics doesn’t work. At least, not in the real world.

    Modern liberalism is about freedom. Be it women’s freedom over their own bodies, to religious freedom and people’s right to be free of others imposing their religious teachings on them.

    Modern liberalism is about information, and making the best decisions based on what our most brilliant scientists, economists, and sociologists tell us needs to be done to make tomorrow better than today.

    Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility and communal responsibility. And no, that’s not the same thing as communism. Or socialism. Or whatever the bobble-heads at Fox have instructed conservatives to believe. It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior. It’s about looking after each other since everyone can have a run of bad luck, rather than living in a purely competitive society lacking in compassion.

    Modern liberalism is about being strong and sensible, and an advocate for freedom all across this great globe – not hunting down evil people (though Obama proved we’re better at that too).

    If I believed everything that this author, not to mention conservatives in general, seem to believe about liberalism… now THAT would be dumb.

  3. billy says:24th June 2011 at 3:15 pmTortured verbal stylings, in your face provocation, logical callisthenics. It’s all been done before, and so much more amusingly, by much more intelligent writers.
  4. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 3:38 pm@Peter:

    Is this some kind of satiric piece you’ve written?

    Here’s my favourite bit from your post:

    “Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility…”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… (takes large breath)…hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

  5. Hilary says:24th June 2011 at 5:42 pmPeter, your verbose and bloated comment is the satire. The great thing about Delingpole is that his hilarity is based on the reality that libs are LOONS, the skunks at the birthday party dressed like Lady Gaga and stinking to high heaven and ruining everything they touch.
    Your comments are hilarious because one reads them realizing you are clueless.

    Frank Tavos says it best HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  6. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 6:58 pm@ Peter:

    No wait, here’s an even better one!

    “It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior.”

    Do you mean irresponsible behaviour like:

    – wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?
    – wanting to benefit from the fruits of our own labour and initiative?
    – saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?

    Need I go on? You sir, like all liberals, are a lover of government tyranny. You want to tell everyone how to live their lives, to fit your own small-minded image of how society should be. You want to stifle discussion and legislate everyone to think as you do.

    Since I can’t believe that someone who writes as well as you do is as naive and ignorant as the content of your post indicates, I am forced to conclude that you are truly dumb.

  7. clair voyant says:24th June 2011 at 7:13 pmYou’ve come upon the only way to deal with Chris Matthews, and all Liberals for that matter, and that is to laugh at and ridicule everything they say.

    The other night on Hardball, I heard Matthews say “we all know that Obama is a genius…”

    What???….Where are the facts to support that? Certainly not in the manner in which he has led his country.

    Keep exposing, laughing, ridiculing. It may not make them watch what they say, but it is great fun and we all can use the good laugh.

  8. Brent S says:24th June 2011 at 8:43 pmConservatives want to control your life – Abortion, Gay Marriage, et al. Don’t think for a second they’re about “freedom” – if it was, they’d stay out of it. And you got to love how they love the fetus up until the moment the thing is born – then it’s “fend for yourself, and don’t make me pay for the extra roads, schools, prisons this extra sea of unwanted children will require”.
  9. Enigman says:27th June 2011 at 8:47 pmPeter,
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha……….Thanks, I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time.

    Hey look, there goes a personally responsible person with my tax money to buy dope.

  10. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 9:54 amFrank Tavos: “wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?”

    Brent S is quite correct. If Republicans didn’t want to interfere in people’s lives then they’d ALL stop opposing gay marriage, let people take whatever drugs they wanted, stop trying to force people to say prayers in schools, stop forcing soldiers to take part in religious activities, and stop trying to interfere with women’s reproductive rights. I’m not saying these are all necessarily evil things to do, just against libertarian principles.

    Republicans who support these policies should remember that when they point the ‘interfering government’ finger at liberals, they’re pointing three of their own fingers back at themselves.

    “saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?”

    As opposed to – “I don’t want to do it, therefore it should be illegal”.

    Keep laughing, because the joke is on you!

  11. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 4:53 pm@ Andrew Ryan

    You haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. You appear to have mistaken me for a Republican. Your comments are founded on ignorance, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

    The fact is, I don’t want to control your life or anyone else’s. I’m a conservative of the libertarian persuasion. I agree with you on the some of the points you raised. I’m also not saying government has no role to play in society. I just think it should play a much smaller role. I don’t think government should be forcing soldiers (or anyone) to say prayers or take part in religious ceremonies. On the other hand, I also don’t think that the government should forbid soldiers or citizens from practicing their religion openly. I also don’t think that recreational drugs should regulated by government. The so-called War on Drugs is an incredible waste of time and money.

    As for gay marriage, the term itself is meaningless. Marriage has been defined since time immemorial as a union between a man and a woman. It is of benefit to society to enforce social mores through social means, not by getting the government to change such a fundamental principle of our society to pander to a vocal minority. It is the left in general and gays in particular who are the ones who are trying to force the issue (through government coercion) by redefining the very essence of the meaning of marriage.

    As for the ridiculous euphemism, “women’s reproductive rights”, if you are saying the government doesn’t have the power to enforce the criminal law to protect the lives of unborn human beings, then you’re advocating anarchy. I’m not an anarchist. As I said before, the government has a small role to play in society, and enforcing laws against murder fall into that limited bailiwick.

    So I stand behind my original statement in saying that I believe in and want:

    – big government to stay the hell out of our lives;
    – everyone to benefit from the fruits of their own labour and initiative; and
    – the right to say whatever one wants, whenever one wants.

    So, actually, the joke’s on you, because you’ve set up a straw man and knocked it down, but you haven’t even begun to deal with the issues I’ve raised.

  12. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 7:23 pmActually Frank, I prefer to base my opinions on fact. You might want to try that some time. The blog we are commenting on specifically refers to US politics. Congrats on your liberal stance on drugs and on religious freedom – you are at odds with the GOP on these positions. The rest of your post is apologetics justifying government control, as I expected. I’d engage more with your points – there is certainly a good discussion to have on the crossover opinions shared by liberals and libertarians on many subjects, but given your initial ‘ha ha ha’ posts, my response was as much as you deserved.
  13. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 7:46 pmYeah well… fuck you, too, Andy.
  14. Nige Cook says:29th June 2011 at 8:34 pmThe French for f*** is foutre, which would sound more polite, although maybe that would not be understood so clearly.

    (I hope James will be OK selling Watermelons at a discount on this website, when Amazon in the past has refused to sell books which are available cheaper online elsewhere? Although maybe this policy has changed, or maybe it doesn’t apply since it is (USA), not Is Watermelons going to come out in the UK, or are all the publishers here too biased to bring it out?

  15. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 2:32 pmNige:

    I also c0uld have said it in Latin, but philistines like Andy-boy would probably consider that a “dead language”. To wit:

    Futue te ipsum, et caballum teum. (trans: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!)

  16. Andrew Ryan says:30th June 2011 at 2:55 pmOdi profannum vulgus.
  17. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 5:42 pmWe’re making some progress, then. If you hate the vulgar rabble, then I guess you hate liberals. There’s nothing more vulgar than a liberal.

    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

  18. Frank Tavos says:1st September 2011 at 1:37 pmYawn… could you two wankers please turn out the light when you’re finished your pointless gab-fest?
    1. James Delingpole says:1st September 2011 at 1:56 pmIt’s OK Frank. I’ve just spammed the trolls. One of the privileges of web page ownership.
  19. Frank Tavos says:9th September 2011 at 4:56 pmMerci beaucoup, Jimbo.

    When’s the next Coward novel out? Not trying to put any pressure on you, but I need another fix!

Comments are closed.

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

June 19, 2011

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

For once my sympathy is all with the whalers…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

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

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

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

    Keep up the good work.

Exploding Watermelons: ‘Oh No, Not Another Ruddy Energy Revolution?’

Methane hydrate

"Well I suppose there's always ocean acidification..."

“Well I suppose there’s always ocean acidification…”

There’s so much good news coming out on the energy front at the moment that it’s hard to keep up. (Thanks for the first few to the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is really on fire at the moment)

Here’s a story from Forbes about attempts by scientists to tap into methane hydrate, perhaps the most powerful and abundant energy source on the planet:

They’ve done it in a laboratory: Scientists have injected carbon dioxide into the kind of  methane ice that underlies vast tracts of permafrost in the Arctic and lurks beneath the deep seafloor throughout the world.

In that experiment, the carbon dioxide exchanged with the methane molecules. While the CO2 was sequestered inside the ice, the scientists extracted an energy source that may exist in nature in greater volume than all other fossil fuels combined.

Here’s a report on China’s attempts to do likewise, by building an undersea base.

Located in east China’s coastal city of Qingdao, the base will cost 495 million yuan (76.2 million U.S. dollars) and will be a multi-functional institution that will aid China in its study and exploration of the ocean, according to Liu.

Scientists believe that the area’s seabeds hold abundant deposits of rare metals and methane hydrate, a solidified form of natural gas that may serve as a new source of energy.

Here’s a sensible, measured piece at Reason from my friend John Stossel on the currently more realisable dream energy solution, shale gas:

Frankly, I’m skeptical of all of them: lefty moviemakers who smear companies, companies with economic interests at stake, and the regulators, who are often cozy with industry and lack essential knowledge. The surest environmental protectors are property rights—and courts that assign liability to polluters.

But hydraulic fracturing is a wonderful thing. It’s not new. Companies have done it for 60 years, but now they’ve found ways to get even more gas out of the ground. That’s the reason gas is getting cheaper and panicky politicians no longer rant about America “running out of fuel.”

Natural gas is not risk-free, but no energy source is. Perfect is not one of the choices.

Here’s some good news for the Poles, who have massive shale gas deposits which they’re dying to exploit (not least so that they no longer need be exposed to economic blackmail from Russia) but which the EU is doing its damnedest to prevent because of its ideologically-driven campaign to impose  “renewables” at all costs on its various vassal states.

WARSAW — US President Barack Obama will focus on energy cooperation, including shale gas development, when he visits NATO partner Poland for the first time next week, a US diplomat said Wednesday in Warsaw.

“Energy is a pillar of Polish-American relations and it is sure to be the subject of discussions when President Obama visits Warsaw next week,” US ambassador Lee Feinstein told delegates to a shale gas conference here.

Global fuel giants are exploring Poland’s shale gas deposits, which a recent US study pegged as having a potential 5.3 trillion cubic metres of natural gas which could last Poland some 300 years.

The US has become a global leader in the production of natural gas extracted from shale, boosting its energy security, driving down prices and making it an exporter.

Poland hopes it could reap similar benefits. However, experts insist that with exploration in the very early stages, it is too soon to gauge commercial viability.

Ex-communist Poland covers 30 percent of its gas needs from domestic resources.

“The issue of shale gas has become an important element of Polish-American relations, strengthening the extra-military importance of the United States for Poland’s security,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told the conference.

Here’s some fantastic news from Canada: (H/T WUWT)

OTTAWA — Conservatives have kiboshed a carbon tax, Environment Minister Peter Kent confirmed Thursday.

“It’s off the table,” he told reporters Thursday after accepting an award from World Wildlife Fund International on behalf of Parks Canada.

“There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future.”

In 2008, the Conservatives floated a North America-wide cap-and-trade system trial balloon soon after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected.

But during the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned the carbon-tax scheme proposed in the New Democrat platform would spike gas prices.

Nixing cap-and-trade will likely be a sore point for the NDP caucus, but Kent said he’d ignore any sabre-rattling from opposition benches.

“It’s off the table,” he told reporters Thursday after accepting an award from World Wildlife Fund International on behalf of Parks Canada.

“There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future.”

In 2008, the Conservatives floated a North America-wide cap-and-trade system trial balloon soon after U.S. President Barack Obama was elected.

And here’s a piece of news so glorious it almost makes me want to cry: at least one tiny corner of the planet has seen sense and begun dismantling one of the most loathsome blights on the landscape human folly has yet devised.

Mark Duchamp writes in with this news from the Lerida, Autonomous Community (state) of Catalonia, Spain:

A judge ordered the removal of 45 wind turbines on the grounds that planning laws were violated. There was no “general municipal plan” establishing a “reserva del suelo” – i.e. the land was not legally declared appropriate for the erection of wind turbines.

But let me put all this in context. Why is it exciting? Why should we care? Because it confounds one of the key tenets of the Green Religion which, unfortunately, has so come to dominate global political thinking in the last three decades: that there is such a thing as “Peak Energy” and that we owe it to future generations to preserve “scarce resources” by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and migrating to renewables.

This, in essence, is the subject of my new book Watermelons. If you want to understand the real reason why Anthropogenic Global Warming theory prompted the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history you must look beyond the science and examine the psychopathology of the environmental movement’s key thinkers. Whether it’s Rachel Carson or Paul Ehrlich or Aurelio Peccei (of the Club of Rome) or John Holdren or Zac Goldsmith’s uncle Ted or Jonathan Porritt or George Monbiot or even Al Gore and the Prince of Wales, each one of them cleaves to the same neo-Malthusian philosophy: that there simply aren’t enough resources to fuel and feed Mother Gaia’s burgeoning population and that therefore the only solution is to reduce population while simultaneously killing off the hateful economic growth which uses up all those “scarce resources.”

To the doom-mongers who hold this view, news first of the shale gas revolution and now of the methane hydrate revolution is like a slap in the face with a wet kipper. They hate it because it denies them the excuse they so badly need if they are to succeed in imposing on an unconvinced world their glorious New World Order in which an enlightened elite of experts (ie people like them) taxes, regulates and generally bosses around the rest of us in the name of “planetary responsibility.”

First Shale Gas; now Methane Hydrate. Sounds very much to me like there IS a God. And that He really doesn’t think much of those who engage in Gaia Worship.

Related posts:

  1. Don’t let the Watermelons kill the Shale Gas Revolution
  2. Copenhagen: the sweet sound of exploding watermelons
  3. Watermelons v the Shale Gas Miracle
  4. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy