James Delingpole

The hottest year on which record?

Scientists seem to be adjusting the evidence. I’d still like to know why

31 January 2015

9:00 AM

31 January 2015

9:00 AM

Did you know that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded in the entire history of the world? Probably you did because it’s been all over the papers. Not only that but President Obama slipped it into his State of the Union address and the president of the World Bank quoted it at Davos and the singer and rap producer Pharrell Williams is so concerned that he plans to stage a series of Live Earth concerts with Al Gore to emphasise the seriousness of the problem.

And these luminaries must know what they’re talking about, right? After all, it’s not just one distinguished scientific institution which has endorsed the ‘2014: hottest year on record’ claim, but a whole clutch of them.

First out of the gates was the Japanese meteorological office, then our own Met Office, then most recently Nasa’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. These, in turn, were doing no more than agree with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. So many international experts, all in agreement: what kind of ‘scientifically illiterate’ denialist nutcase would you have to be to dispute a consensus as overwhelming as that?

A very thick-skinned one, that’s for sure, as I was saying just the other day to my old friend and fellow scientifically illiterate denialist nutcase Christopher Booker. Given the choice, I’m sure we’d both be more than happy never to write again on a subject for which we take so much flak. Except we don’t have a choice. Not really. When you’re a journalist and a story comes your way which is screaming to be told and which almost everyone else is ignoring, what option do you have but to fulfil your professional obligations to the truth?

So it is with this ‘hottest year on record’ story. There are several reasons why it doesn’t stand up. The first is that it’s wilfully misleading. You read that headline and you think: ‘Wow! Hottest ever? That is serious.’ But it’s not when you consider the context. ‘On record’ means, in this case, since widespread global thermometer records began — which is as recently as 1880. There have been many, many occasions in history when the earth’s average temperature is reckoned to have been warmer than it is now: in the medieval and Roman warming periods, for example. Indeed, as the Canadian -scientist Dr Tim Ball has calculated by studying the evidence of ice-core data, earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of those recorded since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Next is the problem of scientific accuracy. When the Goddard Institute held its press conference to announce the ‘hottest year on record’ claim, the compliant media went to town. For example, Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein — long an assiduous promulgator of the alarmist message — reported that nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 2000 and that the odds of this happening are about 650 million to one.

Well I’m no statistical genius but even I can work out the flaw with that one: it only works if you assume that every year in history has an equal chance of being hotter or colder. Clearly, though, this is not the case. In the past 150 years we have been emerging from something called the Little Ice Age, so it’s inevitable that the cluster of years at the end of that trend will have a higher likelihood of being warmer than those at the beginning.

And in any case, 2014’s claim to being the warmest on record is at best moot. As Goddard Institute director Gavin Schmidt has since grudgingly conceded, it is impossible to be sure which of the recent years has been warmest because the temperature differences — we’re talking 2/100ths of a degree — are smaller than the margin of error.

But the biggest problem is this, and few journalists are willing to touch it because it opens such a huge can of worms: the surface temperature readings used by and quoted by all the experts mentioned above no longer accurate or trustworthy. When you write this, it invites the obvious question: ‘You’re not seriously arguing, are you, that all the world’s top meteorological institutions are cooking the books because they’ve got the same hidden agenda?’ And instantly you look like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

There’s plenty of evidence to support it, mind. Exhibit no. 1: the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years. Exhibit no. 2: the actual raw data from weather stations all over the world. This, it invariably turns out, tells a very different story from the narrative which has been imposed on it by the Keepers of the Flame of the Great Global Warming Scare.

Take the records from Paraguay — one of the countries which according to the Goddard Institute has shown the most marked -warming. Examine the charts on Nasa’s website and they seem to confirm it: all show a clear and steady upward (i.e. warming) trend. Case closed, then? Not quite. A retired accountant called Paul Homewood, blogging at a site called Notalotofpeopleknowthat has tracked down the raw (unadjusted) data. And guess what: they all record a cooling trend, not a warming one.

So why the discrepancy? Simple. The keepers of these temperature datasets have, for some unknown reason, been tinkering with the evidence. Invariably, this has involved adjusting early 20th century temperature records to make them look cooler than they were, and more recent ones hotter. This has happened not just to Paraguay data sets, but also those from countries including the US, China, Russia, Greenland, Australia and New Zealand.

Never has anyone offered any satisfactory explanation for these adjustments. Perhaps it’s about time someone did.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • The reason that the phrases “Anti-science” and ”Global Warming Deniers” are used is that the “Anti-science Deniers” ignore demonstrable evidence, and fabricate stories and “facts” that are not true.

    For example, the claim
    “the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years”
    is NOT true.

    Here’s a graph of the University of Alabama-Huntsville satellite data:
    Data is from the “Globe” column.

    People who claim that global warming has stopped are living in an alternate reality that is detached from real world observations.

    Despite the fantasies of Global Warming Deniers, the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7 – including the years from 1998 to present.
    This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

    2005 was warmer than any previous year. Then 2010 broke the 2005 record. And 2014 just set another new record high. Data at:
    NOAA/National Climate Data Center

    2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.

    Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.
    Columbia University

    “So-called “nuisance flooding” — which causes public inconveniences such as frequent road closures, overwhelmed storm drains, and compromised infrastructure — has increased on all three U.S. coasts, between 300 and 925 percent since the 1960s”

    Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
    World Glacier Monitoring Service

    Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)
    Graph at:
    Full peer reviewed paper at:
    Up to date info at:
    NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (click on “2”)

    Finally, temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases and the UAH satellite observations are currently setting new record highs. (Updated thru Dec. 2014) 2014 was the warmest year on record as measured by GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadCRUT4, and Japan Meteorological Agency.


    The actual observations show that global warming didn’t stop in 1998. What is happening is that a few Global Warming Deniers fabricated a story, and the other members of the Global Warming Denier cult continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story.

    More at:

    • BillRees

      Bill, your comments, with their linkages, would have been stronger without your last paragraph, the insults in which reveal that you are really just forwarding the political agenda that so many who promote the idea of global warming are also pursuing.

      • Phillip2

        They can’t help calling anyone who disagrees with their religion a “denier”.

    • realheadline

      Within the error bars Bill, within the error bars. In other words, meaningless. However, what is quite comical, is your cult-like belief in an ever failing hypothesis followed by hysterical accusations accusing others of the same. The sky’s not falling Bill, and Americans have no intention of bowing to your Earth-God or rearranging their economy to placate your irrational fears. Got it?

      • Brian

        The esteemed “Bill” is a Computer Science grad from Brown Univ. Of course, being an Ivy Leaguer defines him as a born-to-wealth, know-it-all limo liberal and being a comp science grad means he loves and trusts computer model. Sorry for the AdHom, but what’s good for the goose…

    • lindzen4pm

      Have a word with Dr. Roy Spencer from UAH, which you cite. He may come under your catch-all ‘denier’ smear, and he doesn’t take kindly to it, rightly.

    • WFB56

      “…..the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7”.

      Thanks for that. No one needs to say anything else after reading something this ridiculous.

    • andypro18

      Before bloviating into nothingness, Bill Butler said this:

      “the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years”
      is NOT true.

      Then, the VERY FIRST thing that old Billy shows us to “prove” his thesis is a graph that goes back THIRTY-SIX years!

      Let me go over that again, just so the obviously anti-science Bill can understand: When trying to “prove” that temps haven’t risen in 18 years, you would want to use an EIGHTEEN YEAR graph, not a 36 year graph.

      Of course I wasted no more time on Bill’s religion, but the fact that he monumentally screwed up the VERY FIRST THING he posted shows us the level of intellect we’re dealing with when it comes to the GW religion.

    • IskurBlast

      So you post a graph going back 36 years instead of the 18 year trend. The excrement is strong with you.

  • Zeke Hausfather

    Here is a satisfactory explanation for these adjustments:


    • Phillip2

      There is no scientific justification for altering data.

      • rtj1211

        There are great financial reasons for doing so. Just ask Forex traders, Libor rate traders and oil speculators……

    • jamesdelingpole

      I’ve read your piece, Zeke. I’m calling bull. It doesn’t even begin to explain why around the world even weather stations which haven’t been subject to the changes you use to justify the adjustments have had their raw data adjusted to the point where the trend moves in a diametrically opposite direction. I put it to you that you are part of the smoke and mirrors problem, not the solution. Interesting too, to note the alacrity with which you keepers of the alarmist narrative leap on to any post which threatens your cosy ‘consensus.’ To me this only confirms that this isn’t a scientific battle being played out here: it’s a propaganda war.

      • Phillip2

        Well said James. A lot of the alterations are nothing but fraud to keep the global warming narrative going in the media and with politicians.

      • rtj1211

        There’s no question it’s a war and there’s no question that it’s propaganda-based, not science-based.

        1. Who decided which Gospels to put in the Bible at Nicaea?
        2. What did the ones which were left out say?

        Heaven forbid that anyone said that Jesus sired kids, didn’t die on a cross and that his ‘resurrection’ was associated with a spiritual recovery from a mortal body blow, rather than actually being nailed to a cross?

        Let alone suggesting that old Joe was a benevolent social worker who took in a teenager who got pregnant and was ostracised by her family and village??

        Perish the thought after all that Jesus Christ was a bastard child, the Devil’s spawn, yet despite that became the greatest mind wizard of his 500 year epoch??

        That would be quite appalling, wouldn’t it??

        You’ll note that I have no evidence whatsoever that any of those suggestions are true……..just saying that they would come across as more likely in the modern world and wouldn’t require an egg with 23 chromosomes to miraculously acquire 23 more, especially a Y chromosome which no female cell has ever contained……..now if Jesus had been a girl, I’m sure you could reverse meiosis somehow and generate 44 XX rather than having to magic up 44 XY from somewhere or other.

        • Ivan Ewan

          Yeah, because after all, most Christians believe that God isn’t real, and can’t work any kind of miracle whatsoever.

          Could you be crazy on the topic which is actually relevant maybe?

        • Dogsnob

          Should have gone to Specsavers mate

      • Pacificweather

        Dammed if you speak and dammed if you don’t. Not very worthy of you Mr. D.

    • “numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.”

      This explanation is unsatisfactory because it exposes a flimsy human construct of global warming evidence supporting a claim of absolute certainty.

  • Phillip2

    Adjusting data is all part of maintaining the climate change scam, the biggest scientific scam the world has ever seen. One day, hopefully, the scam will end and science can kick out politics and resume being evidence-based, not model-based.

  • Damaris Tighe

    I’m always sceptical with the ‘on record’ meme. You often find that records began only 10, 20 or even 5 years ago.

  • Airey Belvoir

    ‘Climate Change’ is the new religion, with its dogma, its tub-thumping preachers,its high priests,its insistence on us taking things on faith and not questioning its teachings, its focus on indoctrinating children and its rage if its assertions are ever questioned. Scary.

    • Mnestheus

      How many times must what Lord Lawson says be repeated before it counts as tub thumping dogma inits own right?

    • David Prentice

      The pseudo-religiosity of gaya worship is an attempt to mitigate the guilt leftists feel in so many other areas of their lives.

      • pyewacket

        All religion is pseudo methinks. A bit of Gaia worship thrown into the mix is just another way to stimulate the brain’s ability to release opiates in the form of endorphins or ‘happiness chemicals’. Religion being the opium of the people and all that.

        So whenever the Gaians start to feel Gaia’s pain, they do a bit of joyful goddess worshipping to stimulate the brain’s opiates. And the worshippers become happy for a while, at least until they need another fix. Much the same can be said about all forms of religious devotion and the brain’s ability to produce mood-enhancing opiates.

        Cynicism aside, I have some empathy with the Gaia worshippers as opposed to the God fearing folk. Earth is our home. We are Earthlings. Destroy our habitat and we destroy our life support system. Quite a sobering thought.

        This post is a little off topic perhaps, but triggered by the fierce arguments between the ‘global warming conspiracy theorists’ and the ‘climate change deniers’. Both camps display a certain religiosity in their opposing beliefs.

    • Pacificweather

      You don’t want to upset the Norwegians do you? We need their gas. Closing down the coal fired power stations is cheaper than changing the wind direction.

  • Rob Harris

    The infinite complexity of climate dynamics, the myriad contributory factors and the sheer spatial volume over which the resultant effect (which we previously called weather) is played out, cannot be accurately measured or simulated and, least of all, extrapolated or predicted with anything approaching absolute certainty. It is for this reason that the pro versus con debate is so vituperative and ill tempered.

    Regrettably, there are now so many special interests, boondoggles, grants, subsidies, sinecures and reputations that depend on perpetuating a belief in the uniformly apocalyptic predictions related to a warming climate that the self serving momentum is irreversible. Counter argument therefore, however reasoned or rational, must be dismissed as heretical.

    One should be in no doubt that had a cooling trend been predicted the scenarios would have been equally apocalyptic (remember the 1970’s) and the bandwagon would have rolled just the same.

    We should try sacrificing a goat, it would be a whole lot cheaper!

    • meltemian

      ….and probably as effective.

    • Pacificweather

      G. W. Bush already did but it did not work. Mr. Obama sacrificed another and that did not work. Where are we going to find the right goat.

  • windy2

    Given that as much as $50 trillion has been proposed by the UN to fight global warming, I am not comfortable with the fact that the same group responsible for models being used to make dire future claims, are the same ones collecting and adjusting temperature data. I like the concept of separation of powers like our government system and I would like to see a split up of the current system so that those recording temperature can’t be influenced by those involved in climate science funding, climate science or climate modelling.
    There is just too much temptation for corruption with a potential $50 trillion pot of gold at stake.

    • rtj1211

      Not to mention a $50trn ForEx market to rig, a $500trn derivatives market to rig and a global oil price to decimate in order to become billionaires from options trading…..

  • Delingpole: “the surface temperature readings used by and quoted by all the experts mentioned above no longer accurate or trustworthy.”

    If you think surface temperatures are erroneous, why can’t you provide evidence for your conspiracy theories?

    Alternately, check ocean temperatures which have been accurately measured by the Argo Buoy system the last 10 years.
    Changes in ocean heat content can be seen at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (Click on “2”)
    (Argo Buoy data is plotted in red)

    A least squares trend line for this ocean heat content shows the oceans are warming at:
    9.5E21 Joules per year
    = 3 trillion 100-watt light bulbs, running 24/7
    = 4.5 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs per second, running 24/7
    Pick your favorite unit of measure.

    Delingpole: “Exhibit no. 1: the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years”
    This is willful misrepresentation of reality.
    Here’s the University of Alabama – Huntsville satellite temperature record.
    Data is from the “Globe” column at:

    • letmethink

      Redrawing the graphic from the start of the 17 year hiatus (the point) shows what exactly ??

      • andypro18


        Since I already showed how STUPID old Billy Butler is in a previous comment, using a 36 year graph to prove no GW in 18 years, your question is the EXACT right question to ask.

        Here, as of October of last year, is the RSS graph that shows temps are exactly flat from 1997 to Oct of 2014. Here ya go:


        I’ll check back here later for Billy’s apology

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe

          The temperatures are hardly ‘exactly flat’. The trend may well be around 0.0, which is something different, as it smoothes out global variations such as the ENSO cycles, and very much depends on the choice of starting and end points. Graphs, eh?

    • realheadline

      “Pick your favorite unit of measure.” Okay, I pick Fahrenheit. 9.5^21 Joules sounds soooo scary. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/22/ocean-global-warming-is-not-actually-global-at-all/

    • TomScott

      I admire your patience in trying to interest die-hard deniers in some actual scientific evidence, but you’ve about as much hope of success as you would have in efforts to convince a 9/11 “truther” that the World Trade Centre was not in fact demolished by the US government (or the Jews, or the Illuminati or some combination of the above).
      This kind of conspiracy-oriented mindset is really impermeable to reason and evidence. In fact, the more evidence with which it is presented, the vaster and more nefarious the conspiracy will appear to it. NASA, Barack Obama, the Met Office, the Royal Society, the universities, the BBC – they’re all part of it, you know!

  • rtj1211

    Part of the problem is the fundamental question: ‘are the conditions where weather stations are sited changing materially during the period of data recording’??

    The answer to this question is ‘in many urban areas, yes’. Weather stations at international airports are affected by the number of planes landing and taking off. Building lots of offices or houses around a weather station creates an ‘urban heat island’ effect etc etc. If you chopped down a region of Amazonian forest, you can bet your bottom dollar that the weather station left behind will be far warmer than when it was surrounded by primary jungle, can’t you??

    My view on the best way to answer the global warming conundrum is simple: we need to identify the most rural weather stations we can on the planet, where change has been as minimal as possible over the decades and we need to focus solely on those places. Those places will be in places like central Siberia, the interior of China, the American mid-West (the corn belt), rural Argentina, Chile and Ecuador, in the interior of Africa. The HIghlands of Scotland and the wilds of Northumbria. In the middle of Dartmoor etc etc.

    Where you don’t want to be looking is at LAX, LHR, Kloten airport, Beijing airport, the centre of New York, in the suburbs of cities which have developed urban sprawl over the past 50 years or places where you have built a gas-fired power station 100 yards away. Anyone who ever dipped their toes into the sea on Sizewell beach knows the ‘local heating effect’ that a nuclear power station brings to the shore-proximal sea temperature……..

    The other question you should ask is why the ‘global measurement network’ was culled a few years ago and which characteristics the remaining stations exhibit: are they mostly rural or were the ones which got culled actually mostly rural??

    If you want to think about the effects of that, imagine this. You are tasked with determining the breeding proclivity of your nation. Initially you are a good boy, so you measure every baby born and compare it to the national census data on total population. But then, some uppity politician with a bee in their bonnets thinks that we are breeding too much so they tell you to stop focussing on those middle class folks who stop at two and concentrate on those catholics, benefit scroungers and immigrants who breed like rabbits. Miraculously, we have gone from 1.9 children per family to 2.7: HELP!!!!

    Thing is, you keep quiet about how you fiddled the data source.

    • Ed_Burroughs

      The urban heat island effect is not relevant. It is a systemic error and can be accounted for.

  • dado_trunking

    Oh it’s Obozo’s fault now is it?
    What about your royal dude, James – still in denial about him?

    What do you want James, the Americans to point their fingers at him and laugh in return? Is that your idea of free speech?

  • paasingby

    There are so many estimations from around the world where are no weather stations that measuring to hundredths of a degree would be impossible.There used to be 600 weather stations in Canada, now there only 35 mostly sited in urban areas. Giss estimate up to 1200 kilometres from weather stations around the world.

  • Mnestheus

    Hottest year in the history of the world?

    Well, certainly since Herodotus

  • Jenny_Tells

    While we can agree that 2014 may or may not be the hottest year, the point is that temperatures have been rising steadily over the twentieth century. We may be in a temperature hiatus at the moment, but this is a temperature plateau on a ramp of rising temperatures. Nothing can be deduced from a single year, or even a decade. Yet the trend is upwards. What it will do in forthcoming years is anyone’s guess. The probability that it will fall is very small.
    As to there being a global conspiracy to manipulate the data for fraudulent reasons, there would have to be a concerted effort by all climate scientists across the globe. Is this likely, and what would be the motivation? If we are going to single out climate science as being fraudulent, then what of other sciences, can we trust them or are they too lying to us?

    • IskurBlast

      All climate scientists?

      You are pretty much talking about 3 guys.

      Gavin Schmidt, Thomas Karl, and Phil Jones. The key to the big con is tricking you into thinking it’s bigger than it actually is.

      • Timmy2much

        yup, and if you go after all climate scientists then their natural human reaction will be to go on the defensive en masse.

        • IskurBlast

          You don’t have to be going after any of them. This is a very bloated field. In the 1980s it was a subfield of geography relegated to a few university basements. The few research institutions like CRU had barely survived the ax multiple times because private firms like accuweather were better and cheaper.

          Then Hansen who’s GISS was also facing the ax gave his big speech to Congress. Suddenly climatology was big, grant money poored in, young would be scientists, all of them free market libertarians naturally, wanted to study climate science and save the world. No longer are they relegated to university basements but half billion dollar palaces like Stanford’s earth science building.

          You don’t have to threaten them. You just have to threaten their golden cow. These people one trick ponies. And they know it. They know damn good and we’ll that without AGW 97% would be unemployed or working as batistas. That is the real 97% concensus.

        • Pacificweather

          Or en trios even.

    • pyewacket

      I don’t think it’s a conspiracy either. The issue for me is that climate science is not an exact science as it’s a relatively new field with too much emphasis on computer modelling. Maybe the Earth is warming, but this could be mainly due to natural changes. Climate patterns have always been in a state of flux since the beginning of time. Even so, my view is that humans have helped to destroy ecosystems through industrialisation, widescale and sudden deforestation and many forms of pollution. We can’t pretend we’ve had no effect whatsoever on climate systems as everything is interconnected.

  • Pacificweather

    Sea ice can melt, glaciers retreat but until the ice in Mr Delingpole’s melts instantly it is never going to be warm enough for him.


      sea ice can melt, it does every summer. It can also grow and does every winter. Only superstitious halfwits fall for the snake oil salesmen that demand cash to stop it happening

      • Pacificweather

        Superstitious halfwits or people who have actually been there and made the observations. It’s not so expensive. Give it a go, you’ll enjoy it.

        • BARROSO

          been where and seen what? You do know that global sea ice is well above average over the recorded period? You do know that Antarctica is massively above average for the recorded period? You do know that the Arctic is back where is was ten years ago? Surely anyone pontificating on this subject would know that?

          • Pacificweather

            When did you go?

          • BARROSO

            go where exactly? Don’t tell me you didn’t know all the ice was fine? You didn’t write all that without checking the facts did you?

          • Pacificweather

            North or south. Both are interesting but it costs less to go north. I have been going every other year for 15 years.

          • BARROSO

            Very nice. But like I said only the superstitious would think sea ice is shrinking, even when it’s growing.

          • Pacificweather

            When did you go?

          • BARROSO

            never been. which of course has zero relevance.

          • Pacificweather

            Nothing like a good look for yourself. Definitely worth it.

          • BARROSO

            Would love to visit either, but holidays are limited and there are many places to see.

          • Pacificweather

            It comes with my highest recommendation and has the benefit that your can write with first hand authority. Take the children if you have any. They’ll love it.

          • BARROSO

            visiting either place gives no authority on the state of the ice.

          • Pacificweather

            You know what they say. Seeing is believing. You also get to talk to some really interesting people. If you buy the locals (or the Russians) a drink they tell you some really interesting things about ice. Canadians have some good stories too.

    • mohdanga

      Which is why scientists who went to the Antarctic last year to study the retreating sea ice there got stuck in expanding sea ice….in the middle of summer.

      • Pacificweather

        What causes it to expand. Ice from the glacier. I have been there and seen it happening. Go and have a look for yourself. It isn’t that expensive these days. Not only will you learn a great deal at first hand, you will see the most beautiful place on the planet.

  • pyewacket

    Climate change is real and is happening and has always happened. But ‘global warming’ is the issue, a distinction which is often blurred.

    The accusation of ‘climate change denier’ is even thrown at those who accept the reality of climate change. The question is whether the planet is actually warming and whether this is due entirely to human activity – through industrialisation, chemical pollution, deforestation and the rest. These things must be having adverse effects, but maybe not to the massive degree most scientists seem to believe.

    Whether we have the ability to cool global climate by covering the landscape in wind farms, and whether it would beneficial to cool the global climate system (if we were actually capable of such a feat) is highly questionable.

    We also need to investigate whether Co2 really is the driver of global climate change or whether climate is far more complex than we know. I can’t help feeling that we are trying to battle against natural climactic forces infinitely greater than ourselves. The old saying, ‘pissing into the wind’ comes to mind!

    • Pacificweather

      Other greenhouse gases are available.

      • pyewacket

        Like Methane? I’ve heard it said that cattle emit enough methane to contribute to global warming. No doubt so did the many buffalo that once grazed the USA before they were hunted to extinction.

        • Pacificweather

          Permafrost. Well, it was.

          • pyewacket

            Yes that does point to warming. I was fascinated to learn about the ‘ice maiden’ mummies emerging from the melting permafrost. That’s a sobering thought.

          • Pacificweather

            Might be good for the Woolly Mammoth if they can be cloned from the ones found. It would be interesting to have some around again. Every cloud etc. If the small Islands do sink beneath the waves then the people can come to Russia to be mammoth herders. Where there is a will… Must keep positive. I saw a programme where scientists are learning to grow coral reefs. Slarty Bartfast will be out of a job soon.

  • CheshireRed

    This ought to be simply huge headline news. Instead the inaction from our ‘leaders’ speaks louder than any words every could. Naked, blatant fraud right under their noses, impacting all of us to the collective tune of £billions, and they do nothing.

  • Ivan Ewan

    I rolled a die twice and it landed on 4 both times. Margin Schmargin, this die is loaded.

    • Jackthesmilingblack


      • Ivan Ewan


  • Sean L

    What does “global temperature” even mean? You can stay in one place and the temperature fluctuates throughout the day, and night. The physicist Freeman Dyson calls it a “mathematical fiction”. He reckons fossil fuel generated CO2 does have a warming effect but that it’s minor, making cold places warmer, and at night rather than during the day. He also argues for evidence based science as opposed to the computer modelled data behind the alarmism. How is that other than eminently reasonable? Yet totally ignored by the media, who accept the warmist categories without question. As you say, it’s a propaganda war. Otherwise isn’t the earth supposed to be 4.5 billion years old rather than a mere 650 million?

  • ohforheavensake

    They’re tinkering with the evidence, James, because scientists proceed by testing conclusions.

    Good to know you’re still as stupid as ever.

    • Jan Wisniewski

      I am currently conducting research into perceptions of climate change for my Master thesis. If you would be willing to participate in an interview please contact me via


      Jan Wisniewski

  • Rob Harris

    Forget everything. The global warming lobby have won the argument. Not the scientific one (their infantile, intemperate response to any criticism or query convincingly demonstrates their vulnerability in this regard), but the all important political one.

    We live in an age of angst, and the genius of a loose association of modest academics was to finesse a truism – the climate changes – into a rapidly approaching, anthropogenically driven, Armageddon. This was manna from heaven for the governing classes who spawned entire new bureaucracies and tax systems to stop the climate from changing. The hubris is stupefying!

    The only option left for questioning, rational beings is to determine where the wealth of nations is being squandered and misallocated in this fool’s errand and to invest accordingly. If you can’t beat them, exploit them.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    What troubles me greatly is the damage these warmists might do trying to counter a threat that exists mostly in their own minds.

  • BobinNC

    Climate Change – What a load of shit.

  • Chris

    The problem with climate change is that we try to view it from our own perspective – that of a human being that has lived, in geological terms, a very short period of time on the planet. When people say that Co2 levels have been the highest they have been for 400,000 years, what they neglect to mention is that Co2 levels are currently at their lowest they have been for 1 of only 3 times in the past 650 million years. There are a multitude of websites out there that explain our temperature / Co2 relationship in plain terms. Historically we are Co2 starved and the global temperature is actually extremely cool. The average temperature (from empirical evidence – not a climate model) of the earth is some 10 or 11 degrees warmer than it is now. Now I know that may not sit well with the Climate Alarmists; but deal with it because that is historical fact. Talk of a few tenths of a degree rise or rising sea levels is immaterial. For the perhaps uninformed out there – at every ice age in the past the sea was 120 metres lower that it currently is. That means that the UK used to be joined to France (no English Channel) and the Mediterranean was land locked. Imagine that. History tells us everything we need to know about what has happened. We are in a period where sea levels are rising slowly and the last remnants of the last Ice age are slowly leaving the planet. When the next ice age begins (which is due) given historical evidence based upon solar cycles, the sea levels will drop again. It is basic science.

  • Chris

    There is of course the other, conspiratorial side of man made climate change that claims the threat of Co2 is being used as a tool to control global population. If you head over to WUWT for example there are plenty of people that post on there that claim we can support an ever increasing population. They dismiss ‘crank’ groups like the Club of Rome whom they (WUWT posters) interpret as a group that seek to reduce global population. Unfortunately, to do this they have to argue that we can support a larger population – 2 extreme ends of an argument that seems to be based on population alone The problem we face is not Co2 emissions, but the fact that we only have finite resources, combined with an ever increasing and older population of people. Climate Change is all over the media. It has become a propaganda tool for a multitude of reasons; mostly financial. But even more so, as it gets forced upon us in an unrelenting wave, despite empirical evidence that disputes our effect, it becomes a religion itself. Most religions are based on an ideal and have no basis on fact or science; and this applied to the ‘threat’ of man made climate change

  • Ian Baird

    I’ve read your piece, James Delingpole, and its just journalism. Well-written, clever, skeptical journalism, but just journalism nevertheless. Science deals with evidence and draws conclusions from it. I see no convincing evidence to support your thesis that climate scientists are peddling ‘propoganda’ or are responsible for a world-wide conspiracy as some of your supporters would have it. In fact, my judgement is that the climate change denialists are losing the debate.Just to ‘stir the possum’ and rile you further, I invite to read this recent Australian article:

  • How many times do the adjustments have to be explained before this Delingpole character stops claiming ‘they haven’t been explained’? You cannot just take the raw data from the instruments without accounting for bias. We’ve known this for decades, and the practice is hardly confined to climate science; it’s used in a variety of fields, including medical. Through how many administrations and generations has this global collusion been going on, one wonders?

    1. http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

    2. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html

    3. http://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825

    4. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

    5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2841