James Delingpole

My part in a masterpiece of political correctness

There’s a new monument to conventional thinking on global warming – and it has my name on it

9 May 2015

9:00 AM

9 May 2015

9:00 AM

Damien Hirst, Grayson Perry, James Delingpole: all winners of major art prizes. I was awarded mine last week by Anglia Ruskin University (formerly Anglia Polytechnic) which I think is a bit like Cambridge (it’s in the same town), though bizarrely its excellence has yet to filter through to the official UK uni rankings, where it’s rated 115th out of a list of 123.

Anyway, the point is, I won. Sort of. I ‘won’ this extremely important prize in the way that Michael Mann, the shifty climate scientist, has been known to claim he ‘won’ the Nobel prize when it was awarded to the IPCC. That is, the prize wasn’t handed to me personally but I did play my part.

What happened was this. Anglia Ruskin staged a ‘Sustainable Art’ competition and the winning entry was a 6ft high mock stone slab (made out of plywood) engraved with the names of six notorious ‘climate deniers’ including me, Christopher Booker and Lord Lawson, no less.

It’s a handsome piece of art, clever too because in ingenious installation-y style a continual stream of symbolic engine oil cascades down the face of the slab, which bears the legend ‘Lest we forget those who denied.’ But I think what probably clinched it wasn’t the design or the technical skill but the impeccable correctness of its politics.


The piece’s creator, a third-year fine art student called Ian Wolter, clearly knows how to please a sustainability prize judging panel. He declared: ‘With this work I envisage a time when the deliberate denial of climate change will be seen as a crime because it hinders progress towards a low-carbon future.’

So young, so certain. I wonder what deep background research led him to form this considered view. Actually, no I don’t, because it’s obvious. He’ll have got it from his science and geography teachers at school; from BBC nature documentaries and news reports; from comedians like Dara Ó Briain and Marcus Brigstocke; from celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, whispery-voiced gorilla-hugger David Attenborough and pouty-mouthed astronomer Brian Cox; from every other article in the Guardian; from the Science Museum in London; from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; from his fellow students and university professors; from the ‘97 per cent’ of scientists who, so legend has it, say the science on global warming is settled… .

Never once, in all likelihood, will young Ian ever in his entire life have been put in a position where he has been given intellectual permission even to consider the possibility that the sceptics might have a point. Like a member of the Hitler Youth who knows that Jews are bad because, well everyone knows they are, Ian can scarcely be blamed for thinking as he does. He’s just another helpless stooge of the prevailing culture.

‘Ah but things will change,’ I expect many of you breezily imagine. ‘Sooner or later, we’ll come up with the killer piece of evidence that decides the issue either way. And then we’ll all know exactly where we are and what to do.’

But this isn’t going to happen. The reason I know it’s not going to happen is that that killer evidence is already in, lots of it in fact. We know for certain that despite almost all the computer models’ predictions there has been no global warming for more than 18 years; we know — this is currently the subject of a major investigation by the Global Warming Policy Foundation — that the raw data has been so heavily tampered with that all those ‘hottest year ever’ claims are utterly bogus; we know that ocean acidification is just another myth, that the ‘97 per cent’ figure is a fraud, that all the predictions about species extinction, resource depletion and other green fantasies have been wildly exaggerated.

Yet the green caravan trundles on regardless. I saw this in Rome last week, where I’d gone to cover a visit by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who had come to the Vatican to persuade the Pope that he should join the war on ‘climate change’. A rival conference had been staged by a delegation from the free-market think-tank the Heartland Institute, which wanted to make the counter-argument: that catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unsupported by real-world evidence; that the measures being taken to deal with it, far from helping the world’s poor, are immiserating and impoverishing them still further.

The contrast between the two events could scarcely have been greater. At the Vatican, a hefty international press contingent religiously noted down every word, even though nothing of any interest was said — just the usual pieties about ‘sustainability’ and the urgency of the crisis and the needs of ‘future generations’.

At the Heartland event, on the other hand, a series of fascinating, erudite mini-lectures was delivered by a team including a meteorologist, a physicist, an ex-Nasa man who’d helped devise the landing gear for the Apollo project, and a theologian. But it was all utterly wasted on those few journalists who’d bothered to turn up. They weren’t going to allow a few inconvenient facts to get in the way of the real story: ‘Koch–funded cranks roll in to Rome to try to stop His Holiness saving the world.’

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
  • rick hamilton

    Seaside villages near my home town up north have been regularly inundated with sand or washed away by freak tides over hundreds of years. If only they had known to erect hundreds of windmills it could all have been prevented !

    • Sharon Fruitcake

      How shameful – the breitbart muppets blow up in collective post-electorial suicide and those who were too scared to partake (liek you) and still cannot hack that The Great Farge is no more (like you) now dish out third rate dog doo yoghurt like you do. Is it funny? Nope, ricky lad.

      • Michele Keighley

        So fruitcake – on what scientific facts do you base your rather childish rant? What are the underlying incontrovertible facts that drive the warming of this planet that stopped 18 years ago and now evidentially appears to be reversing at a significant pace? Or do you only do abuse?

  • Gilbert White

    The true causes of climate change are innocent, sweet smelling babies, not the big bad power corporations , look at the new royal , what carbon booties she will have , probably living till she is old as Methuselah providing the doddery old duke does not drop her. Remember the African pikinini and the hoodie vulture? Vultures were as common as muck till human overpopulation ate their entrails. The truth is no evidence in today’s UK.

  • Molly NooNar

    What a load of rubbish: A “major investigation by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.” The foundation funded by 1, yes 1, hedgefund backer.

    So this is the pursuit of science, is it? Not a scientist launched investigation by world renowned experts, but a one-man-band funded plaything that will set out to protect the fossil fuel investment portfolios of the 1%.

    Linking any kind of arts prize, which encourages debate rather than settles it, with some grand conspiracy to defraud the public is outrageous. Global warming is backed by 27 years worth of science. Do you know how much science that is? Let’s put it into context. With 11 years worth of science NASA was able to travel to the moon in 1969.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Errrmmmmmmm, do try to keep up, Molly.
      Global Warming isn’t new science:
      It’s been around for a hundred years.
      As the warmists keep telling us.
      Which means that for most of the past century most of the scientists in the world weren’t worried about it.
      And even if all the scientists in the world were worried about it now:
      That wouldn’t make it true. Science isn’t a democracy. Several years after Einstein published his papers several hundred top scientists backed a book which rubbished them. didn’t make them right.
      And the reason why 99.6% of whatever scientists back MMGW isn’t because 99.6% of scientists are “Climate Scientists” all of whom have read every paper, checked all the calculations, and re-run and checked all the experiments (wot experiments? ok, computer models!).
      It’s because the scaremongering has been published in supposedly scientific, supposedly peer-reviewed journals.
      But, leaving aside current doubts about peer-review in general:
      The global warmists have admitted in the Climategate emails that they bullied “scientific” journal editors into accepting their papers, allowing their mates to “peer review” them, rejecting “deniers” papers, or allowing them to be rubbish… sorry, “reviewed” by the warmist cabal, rejecting any letters disagreeing with the warmists or agreeing with the “deniers”, or letting the warmists have the last word where a “denier” paper or letter had already slipped through.
      And that there was something (everything?) dodgy about their data by conspiring to destroy it if there was any danger of it falling into public hands!
      And as the notes in the code for their models showed:
      The models don’t work, can’t work, and these “experts” haven’t a clue why!
      If you really want to know how good the science is, have a read of the reports of the various “independent” enquiries into it.
      Done by, at best, scientific bodies which have been blowing the Global Warming trumpet for decades and will be shown to be idiots if they come up with the truth.
      At worst by the Climate “Scientists” own academic institutions which have been boosted by the $BILLIONS in carbon tax funded global warming research grants.
      They are all claimed to exonerate the MMGWers.
      However, if you read what they actually say, they all say something like:
      We could find no proof, in the evidence we looked at, that the scientists were deliberately trying to defraud the scientific establishment or the public.
      So there might be plenty of evidence that they had accidentally, or even deliberately, done so, they just hadn’t looked at it!
      However, regardless of that, they all go on to advise that Climate “Science” depends on high level statistical analysis, and the reports say that, oops, no fault of their own, but the Climate “Scientists” aren’t up to doing the math, it’s not their fault if they make silly schoolboy mistakes, entirely innocently and accidentally of course, and perhaps it would be better all round if, in future, they got some people in who knew what they were doing to do the math for them!!!!!!!!
      PS I never realised Newton and Copernicus, never mind all those ancient philosophers and astronomers, were doing their work in the decade leading up to the moon landings?!?!?!

    • Mr B J Mann

      By the way, Molly, if schools still taught thought, you might have spotted that everything the MMGWers say is a lie, and effectively admitted to be.

      When they tell you something hasn’t happened “since 17xx”, or “since records began”:

      They are telling you that something HAS happened before “records began” (which is around 1860 for the oldest records, sometimes only a decade ago) or it happened in 17xx (and probably several times before that), long before the 4×4, long before cars in general, long before the evil military-industrial complex began “polluting” the air with plant food (CO2).

      So it can’t be cars, or whatever, that are to blame!

      When they tell you to look at the graph of temperature and co2 levels as proof that co2 drives temperature, the fact that the graph shows co2 levels rise AFER the temperature rises not only proves that co2 DOESN’T cause global warming:

      It proves they are liars.

      See, science isn’t that hard after all, is it?!

      When they back-track and say, ok, some unknown, mystery cause caused temperatures to rise every time they rose in the past, but this time we have 4x4s, so they must be the cause THIS time, and then the 4x4s cause feedback and forcing which is causing uncontrollable MMGW we are being told:

      Again that they are liars, because they claim to be scientists, and if they were scientists they would have to assume that if some unknown, mystery cause was the cause of GW every other time, then the obvious conclusion is that it is the cause this time, until they can show what the cause was every other time, and PROVE it isn’t the cause this time.

      And, yet again that they are liars, because the graphs show temperatures FALLING as the co2 levels continue to rise.

      So, again, co2 CAN’T be the cause of the temperatures rising.

      There is CLEARLY some other cause, or causes.

      And if they really were scientists, they would be trying to track those unknown, mystery cause or causes down:

      And NOT lying about CO2, which clearly CAN’T be the cause!

      Never mind wasting their time trying to prove the impossible, when they should be trying to find the possible!

      Is this getting through yet?

  • Annette

    Ian Wolter is a retired businessman of some repute, and is about your age. If this is your idea of checking facts, it does rather explain your position on climate change.

    • jamesdelingpole

      Annette this is fascinating. Tell me more. You mean this third year art student is a retired businessman? Really? That just makes it funnier.

  • Ivan Ewan

    So, character assassination and demonisation are award-winning art media?

    Possibly the main reason I am so sceptical about AGW theory is that you can so easily receive accolades and public funds for promoting it. The truth does not pay that well.

    • Mnestheus

      Can you recommend a good amateur oncologist?

      • Ivan Ewan

        No, but I can recommend that you learn the difference between difference of opinion and verbal abuse.

      • Mr B J Mann

        And your point is?!

        For decades people thought that if you drew a straight line from (0,0) to the numbers of deaths vs radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki you could project the deaths at any other level of radiation from the linear relationship.

        And everyone who got a different result (most people, most of the time) scrapped their research as it was “obviously” wrong.

        Even today you can find figures on the web for the millions who died after Chernobyl.

        Even though hardly anyone did at the time, and the excess deaths since are minimal (check that out with a professional oncologist).

        Turns out that the true graph dips negative for low levels of radiation (where would we be without solar radiation?), climbs back up to zero, and only indicates significant fatality levels for very high levels of exposure!

        But it took years for the professional experts to register the fact!!!

        And look at all the professional medical experts who keep finding that whilst below “normal” and very high “obese” levels of BMI indicate poor health and short life:

        “overweight” and even slightly “obese” people are healthier and longer lived than people with “normal” BMI.

        But most medical “experts” will still insist that you need to get your BMI down to “normal” levels, even though this will make you less health and live a shorter life”.

        And as for acceptable alcohol consumption, there are plenty of “experts” that will tell you how much, or how little, is good or bad for you, but not many that will admit that there was no evidence, so medical advisory panels just plucked figures out to the air for their governments, which is why there is so much variation between countries.

    • Fraser Bailey

      ‘The truth does not pay that well’. The perfect epigram for out times – from AGW to Finance to Politics to the Media.

  • Mnestheus

    Another helpless stooge of the Global Warming Policy Foundation– Larry, Moe and Curley know more about climate science than Delingpole, Monckton and Lawson combined.

    • Mr B J Mann

      That parody site still manages to make more sense than you do.
      What, exactly, are you trying to say?!

      • nancledra

        Why we should be persuaded by Delingpole, Lawson or Monckton when none of them has any sort of scientific background entirely escapes me.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I’ve fully demonstrated why in a number of my other posts.
          You might benefit from reading them and learning something abut “science”.

          • nancledra

            You have “fully demonstrated” nothing at all.

          • Mr B J Mann

            If you believe that then you either haven’t read the relevant posts.

            Or you haven’t taken off your blinkers and green tinted specs first.

  • jim

    Book prizes handed out to the like minded , think tanks disbursing grants to their parrots,reviewers scratching each others backs and burying or ignoring the unbelieversdeniersgoyimnon-PC or whoever is that groups designated witch to be burned….same old same old…Why do you think BBC advertise in the The Guardian.?Tell us something we don’t know.You sound like a child who just caught his parents shagging.You are disingenuous at best.Things are so much worse than you will ever admit.

  • John Bindon

    “So young, so certain”. Remarkably like you then, apart from the age thing, don’t you think ? It’s hardly the first time you have written a patronising piece deriding others for their entrenched (and oh so pitiable) views and it is always rather amusing that you seem unable to understand that you invariably (and I know what that word means) come across as someone who is about as likely to ever admit he could conceivably be wrong about anything as I am to wake up tomorrow morning and find myself suddenly able to speak Swahili.

    • Gilbert White

      Jambo John boy.

  • Gilbert White

    Lysenko says Comrade Stalin has settled the science. Settled science is an oxymoron by definition. The only cultures with settled science apart from the supreme soviets was the Nazi scientific socialism experiment and possibly the Aztecs. No body has been criminally convicted of fraud by funding in the climate field as yet but we are heading that way. Mark Steyn is fighting a battle against the pratt Mann in the States with hardly any publicity here. We should throw the book at those scientists who have taken money your hospital funding was a victim perhaps.

  • Sean L

    You call them a “free market think-tank” but say their event was concerned with physics and meteorology. So clearly their remit is is not confined to economics. Why then refer to them as such? Either way, what this all too typical tale illustrates is that erudition and truth have no market value, at least in the mass media marketplace. But if the market is the sole criterion of value cheap emotion will always trump truth. Which isn’t an argument against markets as such, after all there is no other workable economic model, that’s been demonstrated time and again, merely that what we most value are the very things that are not reducible to the categories of the marketplace, that are not to be bought and sold, truth and reason being among them. Otherwise you’re surely right, no mere argument can convert these zealots: one can’t be reasoned out of what one hasn’t been reasoned into.

  • Jack_H

    It’s funny how the people who are concerned about the environmental legacy they are leaving for their Children regard leaving massive amounts of debt for these same children as some kind of human right.

    • Verbatim

      Something like their parents left their cities post WW2? Or the ‘legacy’ of antibiotics, aviation, rockets to the moon, heart transplants? Try and see the glass half full rather than empty; it’ll make you feel much better.

      • Jack_H

        We are leaving future generations with vast debts because we want services we are not prepared to pay for.I fail to see how people who harp on about the environment feel this is acceptable.

  • alfredo

    ‘Sustainability’ has joined ‘racism’ as a bludgeon word you can knock anybody down with. But it’s an even more refined weapon. People can be pressed, theoretically, into stating what they actually mean by ‘racism’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’. But ‘sustainability’ has the beauty of meaning absolutely anything you want it to mean, and, being totally abstract, no proof of it can be called for. In addition, you can’t decently oppose it, any more than you can oppose motherhood or winsome kittens. There should certainly be an Orwell Prize for its inventor.

    • PaD

      as in ‘Sustainable Cities’ Common Purpose-speak

      • Verbatim

        Your “sustainable” is my “intolerable”. But, what’s it all mean? PC, that’s what.

        • PaD

          check out NLP inc its founders..its the hocus pocus used by Common Purpose ‘leadership training’..check Common Purpose out too see if you can find out where/who/what gave them their legitimacy..then check out how and why millions of pounds in over 20 odd years of taypayers money has been shelled out to this so called charity..apology for using ‘check out’so much..im not a yank..tho i know its anothr imported phrase that i really dont like using
          Sent from Samsung Mobile

    • Grant Melville

      It’s annoying that ‘sustainability’ has been hi-jacked by the bludgeoners, because it’s a very sensible term in itself. (In the interests of full disclosure, sustainability is what my job is all about). Sustainability is a balance of environmental, social and economic interests. If the environment is being pushed at all costs, then that’s anything but sustainable, and the same can be said for the other two ‘pillars of sustainability’ if they’re favoured. They all have to have equal place and resources, or the ‘three-legged stool’ will be wobbly. Asking developing economies not to utilise fossil fuels is neither fair nor sustainable. Equally, refusing to participate in household recycling because it’s too much effort isn’t sustainable either. And devising financially reckless ‘green’ schemes and projects would make my employment very unsustainable! The world is very much in need of ‘real’ sustainability.

  • Sten vs Bren

    “Like a member of the Hitler Youth…”

    I suppose it’s all about keeping a sense of proportion.

    • it’s a fair comparison…he is talking about indoctrination whereby the indoctrinated forgoes reason and goes with the mainstream flow.

  • Precambrian

    I always find it ironic that claims of the sea levels rising are just so much hot air….

  • trace9

    “.. an ex-Nasa man who’d helped devise the landing gear for the Apollo project, and a theologian ..” – AAaand – James Del., Blogger! A positive embarrassment of ‘scientists’. (Next event – Disneyworld, Looneyland.)

    • Eistein’s theory was also rubbished by his peers….no one calls Eistein a looney now. Only 0.172% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is generated by man, the remaining 99.828 is generated from natural processes on the earth.
      Keep drinking that Kool-aid.

  • Fraser Bailey

    This work of ‘art’ sounds very similar to Miliband’s shortest suicide note in history, now sequestered by the Greeks in revenge for the Elgin Marbles on the grounds that the messages engraved thereon perfectly express the belief system that has brought Greece to its present pass.

  • Andrew Phillips

    The problem with climate scepticism like this is the unspoken conclusion that ‘therefore we should carry on infinite oil based economic growth’ – business as usual.

    Instead – why not argue why a zero-carbon, clean sustainable energy based economy is a bad thing? You’ll have a much harder time without your ’18 years’ (the blink of an eye in historical terms) of ‘killer evidence’

    • Mr B J Mann

      OK, I’ll bite:

      I argue that we should burn all the worlds resources up trying to get all the Plant Food out of the atmosphere!

      Ooops, that worked, NOT!!!

      On SO many levels!!!!!!!!!

      • Andrew Phillips

        Your responses are so full of gibberish and sarcasm that I can’t actually understand your point at all.

        If your argument has any strength in it then you can articulate it in simple terms without sarcasm, exclamation marks and nonsense.

        Thanks

        • Mr B J Mann

          Is that what them there “progressives” like to label dissonative cognisance, or whatever.

          If you were really showing interest, instead of just being sarcastic, you’d be responding to my other posts where I had articulated stronger, albeit still simple, arguments.

          However, I doubt that I could have articulated them simply enough for you.

          But congratulations on that big word.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Here’s a longer version:

      Mankind should stop cutting down forests and using the wood to cook on.

      Mankind should stop providing electricity supplies to poor, primitive peoples, they’ll only use it to buy cheap fridges full of cheap, Ozone Layer DESTROYING* refrigerants, to keep their life-saving, Western Charity Funded medicines fresh in.

      Mankind should stop being so fussy and prissy and wasting all its resources trying to clean up the land, sea and air:

      When we should be investing every penny/cent we have in getting all the Plant Food out of the atmosphere!!!**

      * OK, so we’ve already solved that one by switching to highly toxic, highly polluting solar panels, and from dirt cheap, patents about to expire, CFC based systems to very expensive, unaffordable, and fresh newly patented technologies. And, anyway, it looks like the Hole in the Ozone Layer was a natural phenomenon, anyway!

      ** Al Gore can flog you some sna….. sorry, suitable “investments”!!!

    • Mr B J Mann

      Short answer: STRAW MAN!!!!!

  • J K

    Does anybody here remember my old friend ‘Celia’ can you tell me where she’s gone? She didn’t hurt anyone, but it seems the good die young, But I just looked around and she was gone.

    You keep telling yourself human generated pollution has no impact on the world, nothing is dying and that existence on this planet isn’t being diminished daily by creeps like you.
    2000s[edit]
    2000 – “Celia”, the last Pyrenean ibex, was found dead on 6 January 2000. However, in 2009, a female was cloned back into existence, but died 7 minutes later due to defects in the lungs, making it extinct once again.
    2003 – The last individual from the St. Helena olive, which was grown in cultivation, dies off. The last plant in the wild had disappeared in 1994.
    2006 – A technologically sophisticated survey of the Yangtze River failed to find specimens of the Baiji dolphin, prompting scientists to declare it functionally extinct.[22]
    2008 – The Liverpool pigeon (Caloenas maculata) is thought to have become extinct.
    2010s[edit]
    2010 – The Alaotra grebe (Tachybaptus rufolavatus) is declared extinct.
    2011 – The eastern cougar was declared extinct.[23]
    2011 – The western black rhinoceros was hunted to extinction .[24]
    2012 – The Japanese river otter (Lutra lutra whiteneyi) has been declared extinct by the country’s Ministry of the Environment, after not being seen for more than 30 years.
    2012 – “Lonesome George,” the last known specimen of the Pinta Island tortoise died on 24 June 2012.
    2013 – The Cape Verde giant skink, is declared extinct.
    2013 – The Formosan clouded leopard, previously endemic to the island of Taiwan, is officially declared extinct.[25]
    2013 – The Scioto madtom, a species of fish is declared extinct.
    2014 – Acalypha wilderi has been declared extinct.
    2014 – The Bermuda saw-whet owl has been declared extinct.

    • Mr B J Mann

      And yet you want the world to squander its resources on:

      Reducing the levels of plant food in the air?!?!?!!!

      I hope you’re not one of those people who think we should be rescuing the evil human virus from the Med?!

      In plastic sailing dinghies?!?!?!

      Have you ANY idea how much oil rescue choppers burn?!?!?!!!!

      And as for the appalling idea we should send rescue teams to pollute the pristine Hilly Mayas?!

      That’s just childish!!!!!

      • Andrew Phillips

        I count at least 21 exclamation marks from the guy who accuses somebody of being ‘childish’

        I want to ask you (someone who is obviously of the firm belief that MMGW is a scam / someone who has clearly done their armchair investigation and filtered out all of the doubts to share with us) – What is your underlying aim here?

        Personally – I take the ideas around climate science / MMGW / co2 emissions quite seriously, and I do so for 2 reasons;

        1) through a desire to do the right thing
        2) through a desire to live in a world where vehicles do not noisily speed around blurting toxic fumes into the air, where factories churn out pointless plastic crap we don’t need and fill the air with pollution, where we don’t dig coal and oil out of the ground as the backbone of our economic growth.

        So when you skulk around online forums throwing your 5 cents in, what are you actually fighting for? Is it business as usual? or is it a world where gasoline is cheap and endless and we laugh about a time when we thought it might be dangerous?

        I genuinely want to know

        Thanks

        • Mr B J Mann

          >>”I count at least 21 exclamation marks from the guy who accuses somebody of being ‘childish'”

          Says the person who thinks that counting exclamation marks wins argument?!?!

          Exclamation marks are used for emphasis!

          More exclamation marks are used for more emphasis!!!

          I don’t have the luxury of different sized fonts, bold and italic, bullet points, colour and images, side-bars and breakout boxes…….!!!!!!

          I take it you are used to reading pro-MMGW “arguments” that are entirely stream of consciousness screeds in courier without even a full stop?!?!?!?!?

          >>”I want to ask you (someone who is obviously of the firm belief that MMGW is a scam / someone who has clearly done their armchair investigation and filtered out all of the doubts to share with us) – What is your underlying aim here?”

          To demonstrate that people like you haven’t even bothered to do a basic desktop, not even an even more basic “armchair” evaluation, never mind “investigation!!!!!!!!!

          >>”Personally – I take the ideas around climate science / MMGW / co2 emissions quite seriously,”

          Well, if the extent of you analysis is to accept that other people accept it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          >>”and I do so for 2 reasons;”

          >>”1) through a desire to do the right thing”

          But how do you know you are doing the right thing?

          How is causing ickle children to die in third world countries because they are deprived of carbon fuels and CFCs “the right thing”?

          How is squandering the world’s resources on an unproven theory “the right thing” (as even the guy who turned Gore onto MMGW argued, only to be thanked by his pupil by being labelled senile!!!!!!!!)?!?!?!?!?!?!

          >>”2) through a desire to live in a world where vehicles do not noisily speed around blurting toxic fumes into the air……”

          Yes, the number of pedestrians killed by speeding, but light, cuddly, green bicycles, per mile ridden, is in the same ball park as the number who die in collisions with big, fast, up to forty ton motor vehicles, per mile driven.

          But bicycles aren’t noisy are they?

          Perhaps you were referring to trains, whose drivers kill a THOUSAND times as many pedestrians per driver as road vehicles?!?!?!?!?

          Oh, no, you mean cars!!!!

          Because you keep seeing those advertorials telling you, over a photoshopped shot, or video, of a smoking gu…., sorry, car exhaust, that “traffic”, and “transport” pollution causes lung disease which kills millions.

          Except that the “traffic” pollution was from buses and diesel trains.

          And the power stations that fuel “electric” trams and trains”.

          NOT from cars.

          And the “transport” pollution included SHIPPING!!!!!!!!!

          *NOT* CARS!!!!!!!!!!!

          Meanwhile a contemporaneous study for the NHS reported that there were NO health, and NO environmental reasons for restricting car use in cities!

          But perhaps you were thinking of the later studies into cancer hot-spots on roads:

          Around bus depots, bus garages, and bus terminii?!?!?!?

          >>”where factories churn out pointless plastic crap we don’t need and fill the air with pollution”

          The kind of “modern” pointless, plastic crap “progressives” queue up to buy?!?!?

          >>”where we don’t dig coal and oil out of the ground as the backbone of our economic growth”

          Unfortunately, as we’re so busy removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and digging up highly polluting chemicals to make solar panels, and destroying the countryside and the marine environment to erect windmills that don’t actuall produce any power when we need it, we’re stuck with coal and oil as there’s no money left to develop practical alternatives!

          “So when you skulk around online forums throwing your 5 cents in, what are *YOU* actually fighting for?”

          “I genuinely want to know”

          “Thanks”

        • Mr B J Mann

          Well?

          I STILL:

          “genuinely want to know”

          “Thanks”

          • Andrew Phillips

            1) ‘people like me’ = sweeping generalisation, you know incredibly little – and by making assumptions based purely off of the fact that I take mmgw seriously would apply to a broad range of people.

            2) I don’t believe that ‘depriving the 3rd world’ is the way to go – but rather developing cleaner tech which they can use

            3) There’s a difference between accidental death (getting hit by a car) than death caused by fumes which are potentially needless and preventable. I agree not too much blame should be fired at cars specifically which are part of a bigger problem.

            Head to China, more specifically somewhere like HK where you can see and breath the smog from the mainland yourself – smog that’s mostly from coal power production.

            4) referring to me as ‘progressive’ in a derogatory manner – I voted conservative in the recent election – I’m not a ‘leftie stereotype’ – so again, sweeping generalisation hit and miss.

            5) fumes from solar panel production do not exceed carbon offset by their use, especially if they are used to offset power generated from coal or gas – we can cite references if you want but keep them credible (no tin foil hat websites with links to moonlanding conspiracies)

            6) “erect windmills that don’t actually produce any power when we need it” – batteries can sort this, and obviously you’re going to assume that it’s more nasty chemicals which will destroy the earth but no – ‘rare’ metals are 100% recyclable, not in shortage, and not located in the middle east.

            You can’t prove or disprove mmgw in a comment on the internet

          • Mr B J Mann

            >> 1) ‘people like me’ = sweeping generalisation, you know incredibly little – and by making assumptions based purely off of the fact that I take mmgw seriously would apply to a broad range of people.

            So, you don’t believe in MMGW then?!?!
            Oh, you do!
            So I was right about that then!

            >> 2) I don’t believe that ‘depriving the 3rd world’ is the way to go – but rather developing cleaner tech which they can use

            But, unfortunately, most MMGWers want us to stop using “dirty” power and waste resources using inefficient supposedly clean pseudo-power in the interim.
            Are you saying you disagree with that and we should continue to use coal until we develop efficient clean alternatives?
            Or do you, like them, only want to get rid of coal and oil, regardless of what it’s replaced with, or the cost:
            Which sounds more like you are actually against capitalism and the military-industrial complex, or whatever you want to call it!
            And means that we can’t afford (ie won’t have the resources available) to either develop clean tech.
            Or aid the third world!

            >> 3) There’s a difference between accidental death (getting hit by a car) than death caused by fumes which are potentially needless and preventable. I agree not too much blame should be fired at cars specifically which are part of a bigger problem.

            Clearly you haven’t read what I wrote, or I didn’t write enough!

            According to cyclists attempts at counter arguments they kill twice as many pedestrians per mile ridden as die in collisions with motors per mile driven.
            Train drivers kill a THOUSAND times as many pedestrians per head as road drivers.
            Many more people are ADMITTED to be killed in hospital accidents (estimates are ten to twenty times higher than the admitted figure) as die on the roads.
            Cars are NOT responsible for the pollution related deaths on the roads:
            That’s down to public transport.

            So your point is?!

            >> Head to China, more specifically somewhere like HK where you can see and breath the smog from the mainland yourself – smog that’s mostly from coal power production.

            Which drives trams and trains and industry and hospitals and heats or cools schools.
            Which do you want to scrap?
            Or should that be which you want to scrap?!

            >> 4) referring to me as ‘progressive’ in a derogatory manner – I voted conservative in the recent election – I’m not a ‘leftie stereotype’ – so again, sweeping generalisation hit and miss.

            So you think of yourself a righty, reactionary, dinosaur Tory?
            I suppose you also think that GW sceptic Tories are progressive lefties?!?!

            >> 5) fumes from solar panel production do not exceed carbon offset by their use, especially if they are used to offset power generated from coal or gas – we can cite references if you want but keep them credible (no tin foil hat websites with links to moonlanding conspiracies)

            Errrmmmmm, how do you define “production”?
            And what about the (toxic) waste from extraction (and processing), not to mention the despoliation of the environment?

            As for offset, when will “people like you” realise that solar panels, like wind farms, don’t work when we need power.
            And to resolve that problem we keep old and inefficient coal and oil fired power stations ticking over to make up the shortfall.
            Producing not just CO2, but real pollution.

            If we had gone ahead with modern coal and oil plant instead of scrapping plans for them, we would have less real pollution, and less CO2, but, as usual, “people like you” can never see the unintended consequences beyond the end of your noses!

            >> 6) “erect windmills that don’t actually produce any power when we need it” – batteries can sort this, and obviously you’re going to assume that it’s more nasty chemicals which will destroy the earth but no – ‘rare’ metals are 100% recyclable, not in shortage, and not located in the middle east.

            No, batteries can’t yet sort this.
            Especially if you aren’t going to produce any more rare metals, just keep recycling the ones you already have.
            Oh, and building no more windmills because they need rare metals to make them even begin to work anywhere near totally inefficiently.

            >> You can’t prove or disprove mmgw in a comment on the internet.

            I don’t need to.

            The MMGWers have done it for me.

            See my other posts!

        • Michele Keighley

          So where’s YOUR scientific evidence then? Oh and don’t bother quoting that 97% of scientists …etc. 97% of very little is not very much.

          Either quote your scientific qualification and experimentation evidence for your hypothesis and stop with the personal abuse or shut up.

    • Michele Keighley

      If indeed these ARE actually extinct and not merely ‘declared’ to be – [hint, at least two on your list have been rediscovered in their natural habitat] linking them to climate change is too simplistic for more logical people. IF human activity causes climate change which leads to these extinctions, what humans are you going to blame for the wild variations in the climate that caused the extinction of the following – now bring out hanky and weep for the:
      American cheetahs
      American lion
      American mastodon
      American mountain deer
      Aztlanolagus agilis
      Beautiful armadillo
      Bison antiquus
      Bison occidentalis
      Blunt-toothed giant hutia
      California tapir
      Camelops
      Capromeryx
      Caribbeanground sloths
      Columbian mammoth
      Cope’s tapir
      Dire wolf
      Eurasian cave lion
      Florida spectacled bear
      Giant beaver
      Glyptodon
      Harlan’s muskox
      Harrington’s mountain goat
      Holmesina septentrionalis
      Jefferson’s ground sloth
      Mexican horse
      Mylohyus …. and I’m far too damn lazy to continue, but surely even you must realise that climate fluctuations are natural, as are their consequences. Only the arrogance of the self-interested would assume otherwise.

  • rtj1211

    Sadly, your heroes at WUWT are now falling into the totalitarian trap of censoring blog comments which don’t come from the Goebbels manual of centralised propaganda. It’s quite a recent phenomenon and I’ve certainly neither been banned nor have any of my comments which WERE censored transgressing any rules of political discourse.

    I noted this week that they now have the ridiculous thesis that only the Judeo-Christian tradition is consistent with science, rather airbrushing out the Dark Ages when the Caliphate’s leadership in science and astronomy was rather well known. Not to mention those heathen ancient Chinese who did outrageously unchristian things to create dynasties and empires…….

    For an organisation that rails about airbrushing out the Medieval Warm Period, they appear to be going down exactly the same course with their lock-in with Judeo-Christian fundamentalism.

    A shame, but George Orwell was a very prescient man……….

  • Geoffrery Williams

    Great blog by James Delingpole – eloquent and to the point ;
    Man made, catastrophic global warming is the greatest untruth of our time!
    Alarmists, remember that these claims of yours have been going on for over 30 years to this time – or were you not around then . . . .
    Ask yourself about the planet we live on – presently greener and more prolific than ever supporting life for 7 billion people, thanks in part to CO2 levels !
    Ask yourself about the surface temperatures of the atmosphere that have not increased for 18 years !
    Ask yourself about the extents of Arctic and Antarctic ice both recovering over recent years. So much so that in antarctica ice breaker ships cannot reach their destinations !
    Ask yourself about the sea levels which are supposed to have flooded half the continents by now – go down to your local beach and tell us what you see !
    Ask yourselves about so called ocean acidification and enamoured claims of ocean warming then show us all the dead fish !
    Ask yourselves about costly / unreliable / renewable energy and then think about base load electricity from coal fired power stations that keep our industries, our homes, our schools, our hospitals and all those critical services we expect in our daily lives !
    Alarmists, try to think for yourselves! You have been let down, indoctrinated, duped and fooled by your University masters and piers over the years, all for their own political and ideological reasons. These people jumped on the bandwagon / gravy train years ago in the 80’s and they will never back- down and admit they are wrong even in the face of compelling evidence.

  • Geoffrery Williams

    Great blog by James Delingpole – eloquent and to the point ;
    Man made, catastrophic global warming is the greatest untruth of our time!
    Alarmists, remember that these claims of yours have been going on for over 30 years to this time – or were you not around then . . . .
    Ask yourself about the planet we live on – presently greener and more prolific than ever supporting life for 7 billion people, thanks in part to CO2 levels !
    Ask yourself about the surface temperatures of the atmosphere that have not increased for 18 years !
    Ask yourself about the extents of Arctic and Antarctic ice both recovering over recent years. So much so that in antarctica ice breaker ships cannot reach their destinations !
    Ask yourself about the sea levels which are supposed to have flooded half the continents by now – go down to your local beach and tell us what you see !
    Ask yourselves about so called ocean acidification and enamoured claims of ocean warming then show us all the dead fish !
    Ask yourselves about costly / unreliable / renewable energy and then think about base load electricity from coal fired power stations that keep our industries, our homes, our schools, our hospitals and all those critical services we expect in our daily lives !
    Alarmists, try to think for yourselves! You have been let down, indoctrinated, duped and fooled by your University masters and piers over the years, all for their own political and ideological reasons. These people jumped on the bandwagon / gravy train years ago in the 80’s and they will never back- down and admit they are wrong even in the face of compelling evidence. Time will tell all.

  • kathee

    I remember lying in my room when I was in high school and writing in a journal to my future husband. I’d write all sorts of notes and questions and things I’d wonder or ask this man when I eventually met him. I would wonder where he was and what he was doing and if he was thinking about me too. It has always been such a strong desire in my heart to find a wonderful man to marry, someone who would love me and cherish me and appreciate me for the person I am. I always thought I would get married right out of college, just like my parents, so when that plan didn’t work out, I stacrted to get discouraged. A school mate snatched my future husband away from my arms just because she had spiritual powers, all hope was lost to me before i came across the help doctor (prayerstosaverelationship@gmail.com
    ) who i confided in, i told him my long story and he helped me regain back my lover with his prayers which is now my husband today. if you have any problem email the help doctor (prayerstosaverelationship@gmail.com
    ).

  • kathee

    I remember lying in my room when I was in high school and writing in a journal to my future husband. I’d write all sorts of notes and questions and things I’d wonder or ask this man when I eventually met him. I would wonder wchere he was and what he was doing and if he was thinking about me too. It has always been such a strong desire in my heart to find a wonderful man to marry, someone who would love me and cherish me and appreciate me for the person I am. I always thought I would get married right out of college, just like my parents, so when that plan didn’t work out, I started to get discouraged. A school mate snatched my future husband away from my arms just because she had spiritual powers, all hope was lost to me before i came across the help doctor (prayerstosaverelationship@gmail.com
    ) who i confided in, i told him my long story and he helped me regain back my lover with his prayers which is now my husband today. if you have any problem email the help doctor (prayerstosaverelationship@gmail.com
    ).

  • RuariJM

    “I ‘won’ this extremely important prize in the way that Michael Mann, the shifty climate scientist, has been known to claim he ‘won’ the Nobel prize when it was awarded to the IPCC”

    I thought it was your friend Lord Monckton who went around claiming to be a Nobel Laureate because he contributed a paper to the IPCC, James.

Close