James Delingpole

Lefties, liberals and warmists behave like a different species

5 December 2015

9:00 AM

5 December 2015

9:00 AM

Because I used to go to venues like Bataclan an awful lot myself, I’ve been dwelling a great deal on what the fans must have gone through that night. And the conclusion I’ve reached is how utterly random the whole business must have been: whether you survived or died was almost entirely dependent on being at the right or wrong bit at the right or wrong time.

Even the band Eagles Of Death Metal, it turns out, only escaped by the skin of their teeth. The bassist barricaded himself into a room; the singer and guitarist escaped into the street and went briefly back to look for a missing girlfriend only to meet a gunman lowering his assault rifle at them; the drummer crawled out using his drum kit for cover.

I find these details fascinating, perhaps due to morbid curiosity or an overactive imagination. But there’s one empathetic exercise of which I’m utterly incapable — and that’s putting myself in the shoes of those who don’t feel this stuff as viscerally as I do.

For example, the bien-pensant twenty-something French media professionals interviewed in a bar afterwards by Canadian journalist Ezra Levant. Here they were in Paris only one night after young men and women just like them had been shot, stabbed or blown up by people yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’; and all they wanted to do was to apologise on behalf the Muslim community. One asserted that the Quran wasn’t violent; another that only 0.005 per cent of the Muslim population supported terrorism. How many more deaths, you wondered, would it take to dent their complacency? Not 139, clearly. But would 1,390 be enough? 13,900?

We’re often told that progressive types are all heart whereas evil right-wing bastards like me are all about head. But I think it’s more complicated than that. Yes, liberal lefties are indeed capable of summoning raw emotion when considering certain issues: only, though, so long as those issues accord with their predetermined agenda of the things that really matter in the world.


Climate change, for example. According to luminaries such as US Secretary of State John Kerry, Nobel-prizewinning economist Paul Krugman, US presidential contender Bernie Sanders, and possibly even our own Prince of Wales, it represents a greater threat than terrorism. Well, fine. Perhaps it does. So let’s just look at the figures shall we?

In 2014, according to the Global Terrorism Index, 32,658 people were killed by terrorism — a rise of 80 per cent on the previous year. This upward trend seems unlikely to flatten any time soon.

Now let’s look at the number of deaths attributable to ‘climate change’ in the same year. Zero. As it was in the previous year. And in the year before that. The smartarse get-out is that it’s extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods, droughts and so on which kill people, not climate. But the non-casuistic explanation is just as valid: as even the IPCC’s last Assessment Report more or less conceded, the evidence that ‘climate change’ has led to an increase in extreme weather events is slim to nonexistent.

Global warming did not enter the Bataclan theatre with three Kalashnikovs and mow down 80 people. Climate change did not explode 224 Russian holidaymakers over the Sinai. Ocean acidification did not abduct 2,000 Nigerian girls and murder thousands more men. Global climate disruption was not responsible for the massacre of 164 people in Mumbai or 67 people at Nairobi’s Westgate mall. Marginally increased atmospheric concentrations of the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide did not fly two passenger aircraft into the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. None of this is speculation. This is verifiable, empirical fact.

Which is more than can be said for any of the computer model ‘projections’ that will be cited all this week at the COP21 negotiations in Paris to justify the various swingeing measures we must apparently all adopt if we are to combat ‘climate change’. The longer the scare has gone on, the more dramatically real-world temperature data (as measured by satellite) has diverged from the modelled predictions, 95 per cent of which have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.

There’s lots more in this vein I could bore you with: from polar-bear populations reaching a 50-year high to the growing ice-mass in Antarctica to the highly suspicious adjustments made to the raw temperature data which have turned a cooling trend into a warming one. Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelming: the ‘climate change’ scare represents the biggest and most expensive fraud in history. So why are so many people out there so determined to be taken in?

Probably for the same reasons so many are persuaded by the threadbare arguments being advanced to justify why Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ or why Britain should stay a member of the European Union. As I said to the Bruges Group the other day, the way our opponents form their opinions has so little to do with our own evidence-based, logic-driven view of the world that they might almost be a different species.

Indeed, I think they actually are a different species. It’s that same divide W.S. Gilbert identified about every boy and girl alive being born either a little liberal or else a little conservative; and the one that, more recently, The Matrix addressed when it set out the dichotomy between those who prefer the comfortable delusions of the blue pill to the bracing reality offered by the red pill.

One could get very depressed by this. Perhaps one should get very depressed by this. But I prefer to find it a source of comfort that at least half the world’s population are congenitally, hopelessly wrong: at least when they hate me I don’t have to take it personally.

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
  • Rik

    Well said James,you could have included immigration as the third leg of the total cognitive dissonance tripod alongside climate change and terror that leftard liberal progressives suffer from.My my another terrible outbreak of Muslim “workplace violence” in California today.

    • Michael H Kenyon

      You’d think a mass Islamist shooting at a clinic for the mentally disabled might raise a bit of attention and even condemnation. Maybe he (and she) objected to being advised as to the incidence of mental handicap and disorder in the consanguineous children of cousin marriage.

      • Mary Ann

        It has raised attention mind you, most of the violence in the US is not Muslim, and there is an awful lot of it.

        • Ivan Ewan

          Might be something to do with the fact that most of the US is not Muslim. I hope it’s not beyond you to comprehend elementary statistics. Don’t worry, they’ll be making more than their fair share of violence soon if not already.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Yes,

          A bit of it is white, at about the same level of indigenous white v!olence in Europe,

          Quite a bit of it is “H!spanic”, though that bears absolutely no comparison to the much lower level of v!olence among the pure, indigenous, Spanish in Spain!!

          But by far the vast majority of the v!olence, and the k!llings, is caused by, errrrm I’ll leave you to fill in the b1acks!

        • Eric Cartman

          Most of the gun violence is gang violence, and it’s not good-old-boys on motorcycles or Italians. If you eliminate one race from the stats, the US is not so violent.

    • justejudexultionis

      Perhaps the delightful Saudi couple were merely expressing ‘cultural diversity’ through a quaint Saudi custom of extreme violence?

  • Benjamin Blair

    Bravo James. History will prove you right — after western civilisation has collapsed unfortunately.

  • Tamerlane

    Global warming is what you invent to give the impression you are powerful and important when you long ago lost control of the real world that matters – terrorism, population, immigration, oil markets etc. It’s a magic trick to fool the voters.

    • Alexsandr

      no. its a new excuse to increase taxation. its funny that when they make a new green tax other taxes dont fall. do they?

      • eat your greens

        Like corporation or inheritance tax? Watch your council tax go up to pay for the shortfall.

        • Mary Ann

          And of course the poor pay council tax, they don’t pay corporation tax or inheritance tax.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yeah:

            Corporations give the poor a rebate to offset the part of the price the rest of us pay that covers their corporate tax!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And, of course, the poor don’t pay Council Tax:

            The Corporate and Inheritance Tax payers pay it for them?

    • Sue Smith

      Global warming is the new religion; make no mistake about that!

      Characteristics are:

      1. Belief rather than solid facts, accepting no dissent (remember Copernicus!);

      2. Acolytes to spread ‘the word’

      3. Ideological underpinnings based on myths;

      4. demagogues

      I’m sure others could add more to that list.

  • justejudexultionis

    Dellingpole may well be right but he spoils his argument with his constant sneering at what he calls ‘lefties, liberals and warmists’.

    • smoke me a kipper

      Delingpole right? An oxymoron.

      • NoPasaran

        Your flippant emotional defence simply proves his point.

      • King Kibbutz

        No it is not an oxymoron. It is merely – in your view – a contradiction of terms. You are not alone in making this mistake.

        • smoke me a kipper

          Having given your comment considerable thought, I have to disagree. Delingpole right is an oxymoron. Fact not opinion.

          • King Kibbutz

            You need more than a quick google for this. Oxymoron is to do with rhetorical intention and effect, none of which is at play here, and all of which is undermined by repeated attempts by so many people, to wherever possible, cram in an impressive-sounding word speciously thrown their way by someone in GCSE Eng’ Lit’ who had been in their turn similarly afflicted.

          • smoke me a kipper

            I haven’t googled anything, I do understand your point.

    • CalUKGR

      You mean in the same way liberal fascists sneer at anyone who doesn’t buy into their world view?

      • justejudexultionis

        I’m not defending ‘liberal fascists’ but merely pointing out the futility of Delingpole’s method.

    • NoPasaran

      That’s NOT FUNNY!

    • robbydot

      No, he’s bang on.

  • Cobbett

    Lefties and liberals might well be worthless tossers but then Cuckservatives are just as bad.

  • goodsoldier

    Is there a place in London besides one’s own home where one can avoid liberal leftists and enjoy a drink?

    • justejudexultionis

      Your local mosque.

      • William Brown

        Oh no, they’re in there too – just ignoring the narrative and smiling benevolently at the fundamental Imam, whilst considering how lucky they are to be witnessing such diverse and enriching opinion.

  • knave27

    The irony here is that Spectator and its readers think themselves aren’t liberals or leftists. They are something worse: Cuckservatives.

  • flipkipper

    Since the webshite for bored London Brits you work for ‘reports’ (that is an imagined word as in ‘dreamt-up’) about nothing other than Fluechtlingsredistributionsstroeme and Sozialversicherungsminimumstandards on an hourly basis, I am guessing you have stopped editing that rag and handed control to your Daesh sympathising mate Raheem. But what’s all this hot air for closet kip p**fters about that you are posting here? Got a crippling mortgage to pay off, mate?

    • King Kibbutz

      You should do some more of that old Farage’s Fried Chicken stuff. Oh how we chuckled.

      • flipkipper

        You never chuckle brother, you p*ss yourself and your kinky knickers.
        Who is Farage and what fried chicken stuff?

        • King Kibbutz

          Arf arf!

          • flipkipper

            Bad doggy.
            Down!

          • King Kibbutz

            I loves it when you talks dirty. Gives me the orn.

  • Sandy

    Kindly engage your brain and stop misusing the word ‘liberal’. It means ‘one who values liberty’, it has nothing to do with socialism or global warming. Modern British Conservatism is founded in liberalism much more than it is connected to its old Tory roots, with a few dishonourable exceptions like the nanny state fascist Sarah Wollaston.

    The main threat to liberty is and always has been the government (any government). The only way to protect individual freedom is by limiting the size of the state.

    Arguing that liberals are among the enemies of freedom is ludicrous. Statists, thugs and fascists will find all kinds of excuses to use the state to limit freedom, global warming, identity politics, threat of terrorism, public health. Whatever, let them rant, if the government is led by people who understand the limits of the state ranting is all the shrill can do.

    The British tree of liberty may be looking a bit parched, but with a Conservative majority we can hold off on a full scale watering application fo now.

    • Count Spencer

      Most people, post GCSE, understand that the word ‘liberal’ has been hijacked by the left and just go along with the label they apply to themselves.

      • Sandy

        Not just the word that has been hijacked though is it? The left have stolen liberalisms legacy and reputation too. Time to take it back.

    • robbydot

      I don’t know where you’ve been for the last few years? It hasn’t meant liberal for a long time, it means soft Left.

      • Sandy

        Time to take it back!

      • Mary Ann

        Not heard that one before.

        • WFC

          The practice of describing neo-fascists as “liberals” originated in America, and our media (despite their anti-American affectations) always pick up American usages eventually. (Not sure why, but I presume it’s a combination of laziness and modern “education”.)

          That is also why increasing numbers of politicians in Britain find themselves “running” for office.

    • jamesdelingpole

      Yes. While I’m about it perhaps I should reclaim that wonderful – and now horribly misused – word “gay”

      • Sandy

        Thankyou James, you have helped me understand how the classic liberalism that created the developed world was thrown away by small minded bigots obsessed with how other people use their genitalia.

      • justejudexultionis

        There are other words you can use for ‘gay’ in the old sense. Semantic change is a fact of life. You need to get over it.

        • King Kibbutz

          You need to accept the fact that the word ‘gay’ is perfectly fine to use ‘in the old sense’.
          You are correct in recognising the mutations which occur in language, but the changes which stay are not the ones schemed into existence by special interest groups.
          Thus we currently have one word ‘gay’ which has two distinct meanings. Even more recently in fact, the word has – and here, without any centralised push – generated yet another meaning: in casual conversation it is now common to refer to anything second-rate, weak or simply objectionable as ‘gay’.
          Who knows where we will go next with it, eh?

          • SuffolkBoy

            Some of the sixth-formers in a class I recently taught regularly use “gay” (amongst themselves) to mean (in good humour) “stupid”, without any sexual implications. “You took the metal bolt out of the Bunsen flame with the tongs and then picked it up with your fingers! Are you gay or what?”

          • justejudexultionis

            I suppose you think the word ‘homosexual’ has been hijacked by the queer lobby as well! Anyway, have a gay day, won’t you?

          • King Kibbutz

            The word ‘homos exual’ denotes that state of sexual desire between members of the same s ex. I think that has been the case since its inception and to the present day.
            It’s a good system if you think about it: a concept which corresponds to a word. It might catch on!
            (Please excuse my keyboard antics – for some reason, that terrible thex word is outlawed for me. Yours got through though?)

        • jamesdelingpole

          Jesus wept. Are people like you incapable of understanding stuff without the Sarc button?

          • justejudexultionis

            ‘People like you’? You mean, rational people who like to think for themselves? Whoever you are, Delingpole, you are no sage.

      • SonOfGud

        Larry Grayson’s fault.

        • Mrs Floribunda Rose

          Shut that door.

          • SonOfGud

            ppl under 30 probably have never heard of him

          • Mrs Floribunda Rose

            Look at the muck in here….

    • Daniel

      “modern liberals”

    • WFC

      Quite right. I too occasionally take up that cudgel, and it’s good too see I’m not the only one.

      But one has to pick ones battles.

  • LG

    Just as anti-immigration, climate change denialism, bomb-happy old pensioners defines the right. It’s a state of mind on both sides.

    • Freddythreepwood

      You mean the people who planted the bomb on the Russian airliner were pensioners?! That being anti- immigration is confined to the right? Which would be news indeed to my rabidly left wing fellow members of the darts team. Ditto climate change deniers, the only member of the team that believes in it is a Tory hunting enthusiast who, incidentally, couldn’t hit a barn door with a brick.
      So it seems you are wrong.

      • LG

        I can’t be ars@d pointing out the difference between a probability bell curve and specific data points.

        • Ooh!MePurse!

          You can’t reply properly as your original post is so ridiculous. Amuses me how people on the left are so discriminatory and small minded.

        • Freddythreepwood

          Good. If you did I wouldn’t be ars@d reading it and you would probably get it wrong anyway.

  • jim

    People are morons.

  • Mexicano

    You are right. We are a different species. We are wolves and they are rabbits, and the science behind this is called r/k selection strategy.

    This blog is highly recommended – http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/

  • Dave

    A fair few of the above mentioned going off on one now poor dears, brilliant

  • Patricia

    Liberals have wrongly taken over the word “libertarian.” The latter advocate free speech, freedom of expression and a tolerance of others’ views however they may vary from one’s own; all values that British people once upon a time could be proud of and now seldom if ever seen in this luvvie/leftie/liberal land.

    • Ooh!MePurse!

      Yes, excellent point. Liberals used to be the people who espoused freedom; today they seem to spend their time justifying treating women as second class citizens and chucking gay men off the top of tall buildings. Mind boggling.

  • BritishPatriot

    One asserted that the Quran wasn’t violent; another that only 0.005 per cent of the Muslim population supported terrorism.

    Precisely the same mentality that tried to tell us many decades ago that not all Germans were Nazis. Shooting is too good for them.

    • ohforheavensake

      Not all Germans were Nazis. So there is that.

      • Mary Ann

        Of course not all Germans were Nazis, think of all those Jews they killed. I can’t see them supporting the cause.

        • Mark

          Actually, according to the laws of the Reich Jews were excluded from the German volk and so were legally, lesser people, and were not “Germans”.

          Similar to the IS interpretation of the sharia view of the unbelievers in fact.

          Sharia and its supporters should be as tolerated as the Reichs Nuremberg Laws.

      • King Kibbutz

        I think the point is ‘and yet…’

        • ohforheavensake

          Nope- the point is he’s wrong, and he’s a bit intolerant.

          • King Kibbutz

            Intolerant of what? His argument is against intolerance.

          • Mark

            Are you tolerant of the notion that sharia should be imposed on the West by terrorists?

      • Mark

        Good point, perhaps a better analogy would be with people who, decades ago, asserted that Mein Kampf wasn’t an anti Semitic text and that Nazism could be tamed, was useful against Bolshevism and so should be appeased.

      • William Brown

        …but most males of fighting age were in the army, or in tanks, aircraft and ships that would still blow your sorry self to oblivion. Still, I’m sure if Tommy had ‘reached out’ to Hans via the gun-sight, things would have been so much nicer…

  • ohforheavensake

    You really are quite a nasty little chap, James.

    • WFC

      Because?

  • justejudexultionis

    If Delingpole had bothered to read the comments to some of the articles on Islamism, Syria and the Paris attacks that have recently appeared in The Guardian he would see that there are a great many Guardian readers who actually agree with him on the threat posed by uncontrolled mass immigration, the Islamicisation of large parts of the urban UK and the insane ISIS bigots in the Middle East. In any case, what about all the idiot rightists who support our continued relationship with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two states actively exporting Islamist ideology and terrorism throughout the world, including funding ISIS?

  • new_number_2

    James Delingpole isn’t similarly outraged by the West’s illegal wars and occupations that kill hundreds of thousands, displace millions and reduce these nations to the status of failed states. He isn’t outraged by the hypocrisy of supporting some dictatorships while damning others and pretending to stand for freedom, democracy and equality in the process.

    • ohforheavensake

      James is a rather selective chap. He’s really not that closely allied with reality, poor guy.

    • Mark

      War and bloodshed were unleashed by the followers of Muhammad on the Jews, Christians and unbelievers of the Arabian peninsula, al Shams and Egypt centuries before the entity you understand as “the West” was even imagined.

      • William Brown

        Shhhh!…You’re simply making them worse.

    • WFC

      Isn’t he?

      How do you know?

  • Simon Fay

    The louche, cold-eyed and selectively-pious bon-viveurs back in Paris the following night are sprinkled all over the West. Visceral hot-teared outrage is reserved for when they have to swing the vote. They are strangely indifferent to the victims of terrible crimes that don’t carry potential political freight.

    • davidofkent

      Simple English will suffice. Traversing the dictionary is not required.

      • Simon Fay

        Get stuffed.

        Simple enough?

        • William Brown

          Very enjoyable discourse. Thanks chaps. As you were.

  • Nige Cook

    Of course they are different species – Eoli and Morlock as defined by HG Wells. It’s evolving politic.

    • Mrs Floribunda Rose

      Eloi, not Eoli.

  • SonOfGud

    Lefties are only humanitarians in the abstract.
    But they’re not so keen on real humans.

    • ohforheavensake

      Unlike the people on these threads, who are sweet, kind and just so wonderfully empathetic.

      • WFC

        A lot of them will be. Some to “humanity” in the abstract, others to people in particular, others in proportion to how well they know the person needing sweetness, kindness and justice.

        Then there are leftists.

        • ohforheavensake

          Yes. And if the people are Muslims, or maybe just that little bit different, the people on these threads are so tolerant, and friendly, and just plain nice.

          • WFC

            On the contrary.

            Many on the right will fear “Islam” in the abstract, whilst getting on very well with Muslims in particular.

            I realise that that sort of attitude is wholly inexplicable to modern leftists.

      • SonOfGud

        I’d sooner have any of the classical liberals, here, watching my back, than have to rely on the treacherous ideologues of the left.

    • trobrianders

      Suffering from a mental disorder shouldn’t mark you out as coming from a different species.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Love it. Great fun, and indeed, comforting when they have a pop.

    • ohforheavensake

      You like balloons too?

      • Dominic Stockford

        British ones and commonwealth ones especially.

        • ohforheavensake

          Really? How can you tell?

          • Dominic Stockford

            The place of manufacture is always clearly marked on the packet they come in.

          • ohforheavensake

            By George. You like balloons a lot, don’t you?

            How are you with people?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Unlike the lefties, I get on with people who disagree with me, as well as those with whom I share opinions.

          • ohforheavensake

            Ah.

            I think I’d stick with balloons, mate.

          • Radical Rodent

            One up to Dominic, there!

  • MrBishi

    The “threat” of global warming is warning of POTENTIAL future harm, not current harm. It is indisputible that if global warming continues to rise unabated, then the human race will be wiped out.
    To compare the effects of global warming – to date – and terrorism, simply exposes a slender grasp of the meanings of words, or more precisely, their tenses.
    Even ignoring lexical semantics, the fact is that we simply don’t know how many people have died as a result of global warming but the numbers dying from drought each year are high and it is a foolish person who suggests that droughts are never caused or exacerbated. by global warming.

    • Mrs Floribunda Rose

      Personally, I generally tend to ignore lexical semantics. It seems the wise thing to do.

      • MrBishi

        Very sensible.

        • William Brown

          Nice turn of phrase though…

    • Andy JS

      The same experts were telling us in the 1970s that we’d all be freezing to death by now. Population experts were telling us in the 1960s and 1970s that we’d all be dying from overcrowding by now. I’m afraid I don’t trust them not to change their minds again on subjects like climate change.

      • MrBishi

        See my last reply.

    • Rosemary Fryth

      May I draw your attention to these graphs: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
      Note the direction of the trend line.

      • MrBishi

        The words “Dunning” and “Kruger” come to mind.

    • freddiethegreat

      Apparently 192 000 died in 2012 as a direct result of crops being used as “biofuel”. Warmism kills

      • MrBishi

        I happen to think that turning food crops into biofuel is a stupid, wrongheaded thing to do.
        But it doesn’t alter the arguments over global warming.
        We have allowed to develop, policians who take bribes and that is another threat to our well-being. There are plenty of people with enough money to make more from creating a shortage. All it takes is a few bribes to make the politians turn a blind eye.

    • Latimer Alder

      ‘It is indisputible that if global warming continues to rise unabated, then the human race will be wiped out’.

      Really?

      Why? Why will the human race be wiped out? What will cause our extinction?

      Please be very specific about the mechanisms you believe will be involved.

      • MrBishi

        Basically all the plants on land and in the sea die, followed by the animals and fish we eat and when the last human has eaten the penultimate human, that’s it.
        Six Degrees: Our Future On A Hotter Planet, by Mark Lynas is a good place to start.

        • Latimer Alder

          At what temperature would ‘all the plants on land and sea die’?

          Is there enough total carbon in the world to make this ever happen? Recall that greenhouse gases have a logarithmic effect, so warming trails off.

          And why on earth should I listen to a crackpot eco-theory from a man whose only qualifications are in history and politics?

          • MrBishi

            Read the book.

          • Latimer Alder

            Nope.

            You summarise for all the many people who are reading these remarks and who won’t have the time or money to shell out £9.99 on a nearly 10-year old book about a catastrophotheory that died a death a long time ago..

            You are the one who wishes us to take it seriously. You make the point here. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.,

          • MrBishi

            Stay ignorant then.

          • Latimer Alder

            Unimpressive and unpersuasive.

            When even its arch proponent can’t provide a few sentences on why it might be true, the proposition

            ‘It is indisputible that if global warming continues to rise unabated, then the human race will be wiped out’.

            fails. The proposer withdrew the motion.

          • MrBishi

            You are ignorant, illiterate and immensely annoying.
            What I said, was “IF global warming continued unabated …” And that statement is factual and simply not open to challenge .
            You, in your simple way, are bringing the AGW debate onto this blog and that is something I try to steer clear of because most of the science is beyond me, being at the limits of human knowledge as it is. I will, though, make an exception in your case if only to demonstrate to other readers of the dangers of taking bloggers seriously.
            You seem happy to accept the findings of one scientist – Eschenbach – who suggests that the ability of CO2 to absorb heat is limited. This is wrong headed because CO2 in the atmosphere retains and loses heat and so NASA have measured to spectrum of radiation arriving at and leaving the earth and rightly conclude that more is being retained.
            Fortunately, the world’s leaders tend to ignore people with Dunning Kruger effect and so their actions – in reducing CO2 emmisions has resulted in the amount put into the atmosphere levelling off and hopefully it will begin to reduce in the next year or so.
            For your future learning, one doesn’t simply take one piece of research which happens to fit your prejudices but reads all or as much as you can before venturing onto a public platform to make a fool of yourself.

          • Latimer Alder

            Most of this is just ranting and unworthy of a serious reply.

            But your learning point should be that nobody at all disputes that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic.

            The first scientist to seriously try to quantify its effect was Arrhenius over one hundred years ago. And he, like everyone else since, came to that conclusion.

            In case you are still unsure what ‘logarithmic’ means, here’s a typical plot

            http://econlog.econlib.org/2014/12/12/epstein1.jpg

            Simply put – the more CO2 is already there, the more you need to get the temperature to rise.

            If you genuinely think this basic O level maths stuff is ‘at the limit of human knowledge’, then I fear it is you, not me, who is ignorant and innumerate.

            And I am delighted to hear that you find me ‘intensely annoying’ for pointing it out.

            PS Logarithms were first described by the Scottish mathematician John Napier in 1614. Over 400 years ago.

          • MrBishi

            You are the most classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect that I have come across on Disqus.
            Clearly your reading problems create difficulties for you on a blog. What I said, was, “most of the SCIENCE is beyond me …” not the “maths” which I can handle – unlike you.
            A glance at Myhre graph you include above shows that we are currently on a part of the graph which is nearly flat. A point confirmed by the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures which – for the past 100 years Has been almost a straight line at 0.8. It is equally obvious from the same graph that this “near straight line” correlation will continue for several hundred years yet. Your much revered logarithmic curve will do nothing to stop global temperatures rising by 6 degrees.
            I have already told you that NASA have measured more radiation hitting the earth than leaving and you would do better to worry about where that surplus radiation is going and what it is doing.
            Finally – and this will be my last post to you on this thread – we haven’t even looked at water vapour, which is increasing as CO2 generated warming increases. And when that get going the global temperature will rise exponentially or asymptotically if you prefer to the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere.
            I seriously suggest you apply your limited knowledge to something more appropriate, such as collecting train numbers.

          • Latimer Alder

            You make my point for me. The logarithmic curve is flattening out.

            We’ve increased the CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4. And the temperature has gone up (maybe) 0.8C. To get the next 0.8C we’ll need to go to maybe 6 parts per 10,000. And then to 12 or 15. and so on. Each time we need a bigger increase in CO2 concentration to get the same temperature change.
            We’ll run out free carbon before we get to 6C.

            Which was why I asked my eminently sensible question. The one you have either not grasped, or refuse to answer.

  • john

    Of course, there is current future harm. Ask the residents of Vanuatu. Or see where you have to go get good ski runs in Switzerland. Check California droughts etc etc etc

    • Ian W

      Well you can ask the residents of Vanuatu as the area of their islands has increased. Ski runs in Switzerland will recover as they did when they were told there would be no more snow, California has had worse droughts, droughts world wide are lower than normal as are land falling hurricanes, the Arctic sea ice has recovered to a higher volume than expected and Antarctica is gaining ice not losing, the population of polar bears is at an all time record, etc etc.

      • john

        Congratulations on the most fact free assertions of this discussion. PS The world is flat and Santa is about to leave the North Pole on his sleigh.

        • Latimer Alder

          Which of the assertions IanW makes can you show to be wrong?

          • john

            I guess Google isn’t available in the UK?

            Here’s ONE of hundreds of articles making my point.

            (Vanuatu Prime Minister) Lonsdale said the cyclone seasons that the nation had experienced were directly linked to climate change.

            “We see the level of sea rise … The cyclone seasons, the warm, the rain, all this is affected ,” he said. “This year we have more than in any year … Yes, climate change is contributing to this.”

            You should also tell those Vanuatu citizens currently leaving the island for refuge elsewhere that their trip is pointless.

          • Jambo25

            Trouble is, what reliable evidence we have tends to show, at best, no increase in the frequency or power of hurricanes/cyclones and at worst from the MMGW point of view a greater number of more powerful cyclones/hurricanes in the past.

          • Latimer Alder

            You’ll be pleased to know that Google is working fine. And after 30 years in professional IT I am quite capable of using it.

            And it tells me that in 1961 the population of Vanuatu was about 65,000. Today it is estimated at 272,000. It has quadrupled in under 60 years and continues to grow.

            If there are indeed a few Vanuatu citizens leaving , I’d suggest it is overpopulation rather than climate change that is the cause. But the nett population change remains up.

            And Google (wonderful tool) also lets me see the actual tide/sea level gauge readings from Port Vila (capital of Vanuatu) for the last 20 years

            http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1841_high.png

            Do you see a trend? Is the place being overwhelmed? Sure doesn’t look like it to me.

            So the observed data doesn’t make your case at all. In fact it weakens it – no significant sea level changes. And a huge nett population growth.

            That the Prime Minister tries to conceal this bu fact-free handwaving is no surprise.

            But that you take the content of a political speech as fact instead of looking at the freely available data is disappointing. Especially from one so free to diss other people as ‘Flat Earthers’.

    • Mr B J Mann

      As outlined by Ian W below GWers keep proving their “proofs” and “evidence” range from plain wrong to downright l!es!

      Keep it up!!!

    • freddiethegreat

      Hasn’t the Maldives vanished already?

    • Jambo25

      There’s been more snow on Scottish ski runs over the past few years than for decades.

      • john

        Wow! A crucial factoid. You obviously don’t understand the concept of “global”. Your facts are probably wrong but irrelevant anyway – we are concerned with the temperature of the earth as a whole.
        BTW it’s been quite warm in my back garden so global warming is true.

        • Jambo25

          Sorry sweetie, but it was you who brought it up with your rather brainless reference to Swiss ski runs. As far as I know Scotland is on the same global planet as Switzerland. I think its you who doesn’t understand the concept.

          • john

            Let’s try a complex answer.
            (1) we are talking about GLOBAL climate. Global temperatures have been rising for the past several years and 2016 is expected to be another record high.
            (2) Temps and other impacts in specific locations will tend to reflect this global increase but may not for local reasons.
            NB Amount of snow in Scotland or Switzerland is relevant but is not a measure of global temperature.

          • Jambo25

            I was answering your initial claim that snow in Switzerland was somehow becoming harder to find. You see, that’s how this works. You write something stupid and I react to it by pointing out its stupid. You mentioned Switzerland. I mentioned Scotland as being different from the phenomenon. Both instances are ‘local’.

          • john

            You are still missing the point.

        • Jambo25

          Sorry sweetie, but it was you who brought it up with your rather brainless reference to Swiss ski runs. As far as I know Scotland is on the same global planet as Switzerland. I think its you who doesn’t understand the concept.

        • Jambo25

          Strangely enough I know the meaning of “global”. I also know as an historian that there have been major climate shifts in historical and prehistorical times. Just in the Christian era we can note what appears to be climate deterioration (colder and wetter) towards the time of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. This was followed from about the 9th or 10th centuries with the Medieval Warm Period which saw movements of a rising European population to the North and East. The establishment of Norse, agricultural colonies in Iceland and (perhaps for a short time) in Greenland. It also saw the establishment of warm/temperate crops such as vines as far north as the English Midlands/Yorkshire. Then there was the end of the MWP from the mid/late 13th century and the failure of crops ; die back of population and the disaster of the Black Death malnourished populations in the mid 14th century. Since then we had climate warming then the ‘Little Ice Age’: more warming and cooling. It isn’t quite as simple as the more single minded partisans of the MMGW debate seem to imagine.

          • john

            Fascinating bumf. Your historical expertise is impressive – although your conclusions are wrong and do not reflect current scientific findings. A bit like a medieval bishop explaining why the earth is undeniably flat.

          • Jambo25

            That “Fascinating bumf” has never ben explained away. Nor is there quite as much consensus on what’s happening to the climate as proponents of MMGW like to pretend. When the Al Gore propagandas piece ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was forced on schools the members of the Geography and Physics departments were so horrified by the tenor of what was essentially an agitptop piece being fed to their pupils that they organised showings of anti-warmist material to counter it.

    • 30characters

      I live in Switzerland and there is no problem finding decent skiing. I was up on the mountain this morning.Oh wait. You don’t want real evidence do you?

      • LG

        Of course you can still find snow. That’s hardly evidence. But you obviously haven’t been doing much skiing on the glaciers recently then. Like the Aletsch, some Swiss glaciers are retreating at 30m per year.
        Have you tried skiing the Pas de Chèvre run down onto the Argentiere glacier in Chamonix recently? It’s dropped so much that soon the run will be impossible because there will just be a cliff drop.

        • 30characters

          Sorry, I was rhetorically asked where you have to go to get good ski runs in Switzerland, not what off piste conditions are like in Chamonix France. (That’s a different country). No I haven’t skied the Pas De Chevre recently because I don’t live in France. Interesting that finding decent snow is not evidence in your mind but finding poor snow in another country is.

      • john

        After 30 seconds research, I find the Swiss Climate authorities saying re: Alpine snow: “followed by a statistically significant decrease towards the end of the
        century. Regional and altitudinal variations are large”;
        What a lucky break – science is right.

        • 30characters

          Oh sorry, I thought when you said “See where you have to go to get good ski runs in Switzerland” that that’s what you meant, whereas obviously what you really meant was “look it up on the net”. Even then your quote says “regional and altitudinal variations are large” after a statistically significant (you know what that means do you?) decrease “at the end of the last century”.
          And then I went and looked up your reference. Oh dear. You did some very naughty selective editing there. For example you omit the part where they say there was a gradual increase from 1931 until the early 1980s and that at elevations over 1300m above sea level that a weak increasing trend towards heavier snowfalls has persisted since the 1960s and only low altitudes below 650m above sea level show a drop since the early 1980s—(up till 1999 remember when the paper was written). So your research only took 30 seconds but that was still long enough for you to edit what they said to suit your argument. Typical of the alarmists.

    • Latimer Alder

      What harm is actually being caused to the residents of Vanuatu?

      Beyond having a scaremongering PM.

      Please back up any assertions with data.

      • 30characters

        I’ve put some data that contradicts john’s “science” below.

      • john

        The flat earth division are out in force!

        I’ll take the word of the Ambassador from Vanuatu to the UN.

        “In 1990, Van Lierop became the first chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States, a position which he held until 1994;[5][6] he emphasised the importance of the fight against climate change, to which Small Island Developing States are particularly vulnerable.[7]”

        Lots more like that – please don’t tell me its all a Lefty plot to take over the world.

        • Latimer Alder

          Wow.

          You do choose some strange places to look for support. While I look at actual observable things like sea level and population numbers – real data – you rely on emotive speeches by politicians and diplomats.

          It may be that Vanuatu’s pollies and dips are (uniquely among their profession) 100% straightforward and honest. It may be that they truly believe the stuff that they say. But their belief is not evidence of actual harm. And it is that evidence that is lacking.

          Its also worth noting that Van Lierop (what an unfortunate name) made his remarks 25 years ago. In that time. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 350 ppm to 400 ppm (14%).

          Surely by now some physical effects should be apparent if CO2 driven global warming is really the threat he warned about.

          So what are they?

          Please show actual data, not just motivated politicians’ remarks.

          • john

            Morty: Of course, I rely on info from informed sources. There is a mountain of data and neither you nor I can do justice to it. If pretty much all the world’s governments and scientists agree and the locals do also, I think that’s a good data base.
            Anyway, I’m sure you’ll stick to your position. Bye

          • Latimer Alder

            ‘There is a mountain of data and neither you nor I can do justice to it’.

            Try me. Show me any bit of that confirms that Vanuatu is actually suffering any sort of harm. Then we can make a sensible assessment of how serious (if at all) it is.

            We know from the gauges that the sealevel ain’t rising. And we know from the demographics that the population is.

            What’s left?

            Glad you are so willing to believe ‘informed sources’. As it happens I met a nice guy in the pub who told me about this lovely bridge he had for sale. Shall we go halves?

    • 30characters

      And while we’re at it, let’s look at another one of your anecdotes.
      Here are the facts about sea level in Vanuatu

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/sea-levels-not-rising-at-vanuatu/

      Oops they’re not rising at all. In fact some coral atolls are even growing

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/coral-islands-bigger-despite-oceans-rise-1991017.html

      Pesky science eh? It just won’t cooperate with the “models”.

      • Neil2

        I haven’t got the quote but one warmist said he believed the models over the facts. You can’t fix stupid.

  • Johnny Verity

    “And the conclusion I’ve reached is how utterly random the whole business
    must have been: whether you survived or died was almost entirely
    dependent on being at the right or wrong bit at the right or wrong time.”

    A bit like the people attending weddings or visiting sick relatives in a hospital in Afghanistan perhaps?

    Grow up!

    • TNT

      Yes. Very grown up. What did the people in Bataclan have to do with the hospital or wedding in Afghanistan?

  • Terence Hale

    Hi,
    Lefties are capitalist with a full stomach, liberals; a head in the sand politics. all only motivated when the boat rocks itself.

  • vukini

    Climate change and terrorism are two very different beasts. It is like comparing deaths due to drug violence with deaths caused by societal over consumption of sugar. Both are important. Climate change is real although we don’t know the reasons. People argue in many ways about whether it is human caused or natural. Terrorism also has a few causes. It is time to figure out that both causes are in effect. Ideology and geopolitical wars. The problem is our leaders and intelligencia can’t call the problem by name, they don’t have a single solution that could be remotely effective. We can all see it and it is frustrating. The left are blind in total, in that I have no doubt. The right however are unable to communicate in any effective manner and are the minority so have little political power. Everyone is frustrated.

    • Andy JS

      At the moment I think 90% of our attention should be turned towards the subject of terrorism, so it’s annoying when the BBC and other broadcasters make such an enormous fuss about climate change. Of course they know that they’re annoying a lot of people by putting climate change before terrorism on the news, but it’s justified because they know best.

      • Simon Fay

        I’m sure the knowledge that they’re annoying so many just bolsters them in their conceit that they’re doing the right thing.

      • douglas redmayne

        A Tory turd speaks.

        • 30characters

          I’m not a Tory and I agree with Latimer.

      • Latimer Alder

        COP21 ‘talks’:

        40,000 climatoangsters and unpleasant hangers-on enjoy taxpayer-funded kerosene guzzling boondoggle to Paris for pissup, fine dining and Xmas shopping.

      • Sunset66

        ” Creating a fuss”

        Laughable

  • trobrianders

    Lefties, liberals and warmists are all united in their denial.

  • Rosemary Fryth

    Give me the Red Pill every time, at least then I won’t be disappointed by the Real World not living up to expectations.

  • Callipygian

    The Left is irrational, James, even more than than most of us: it believe eight irrational things before getting out of bed, and then it keeps on believing.

    Leftism, I have to come to conclude, is the refusal to accept to reality.

    Which only makes reality worse, of course.

    But they can’t see that because [and on it goes, till the sun explodes… and even then it continues, in a Star Trekian alternative non-reality].

  • GreenWyvern

    Global warming did not enter the Bataclan theatre with three Kalashnikovs and mow down 80 people.

    The silliness of this statement shows the lack of intellect of this whole article.

    It’s worth pointing a few facts about climate change.

    ‣ The earth is warming up – this is as firmly established as any scientific fact about the weather could possibly be. It’s possible to argue about the reasons for it, but not about the temperature rise itself.

    ‣Any action creates results. Human beings have been dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, year after year and decade after decade. To imagine that this has no effect is unscientific and irrational.

    It’s possible to argue about what the nature of the effect is, or how large it is, but it is not possible to argue that human activity has no effect. If volcanoes spewing out ash can affect world climate, then decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can affect world climate.

    Actions have consequences.

    ‣ Large corporations whose industries produce greenhouse gases have very strong financial interests in preventing any regulation. They are pouring millions of dollars all the time into funding anti-climate-change organizations, creating anti-climate-change talking points, publicizing them through media organizations which are friendly to large corporations, and lobbying governments. These are also facts.

    This means that any argument about climate change has to be very carefully and critically examined, and allowance has to be made for the propaganda effort financed by corporations who don’t want to reduce emissions, because that would reduce their profits.

    • Callipygian

      You are immoral. Go to bed or go elsewhere. Whatever you do, sod off.

      • GreenWyvern

        If you don’t have the intellect to offer a rational response to an argument, then just sneer and shout childish insults. Seems very moral.

        This kind of behaviour is common on both the left and the right, unfortunately.

      • douglas redmayne

        You are stupid and playing into the hands of big corporations. Fortunately turds like you are in a minority.

      • freddiethegreat

        I think he’s talking nonsense, but let’s keep it to the argument.

    • David Prentice

      Earnest, boring and faintly sinister. Climate is merely a useful MacGuffin. You don’t really care about it. What you mostly want to do is stifle debate and imprison people who disagree with your agenda.

      • GreenWyvern

        Why talk such complete nonsense?

        I’m interested in facts, science and truth. What’s your agenda?

        • 30characters

          So what do you say to the fact that 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions in history have occured in a period when the satellite data show no warming at all? You say you’re interested in facts, science and truth. Are you interested in that fact?

        • flaxdoctor

          If you’re interested in truth, why is so much so-called ‘green’ dogma utter lies – take the Mann hockey stick? This is probably the worst corruption of statistics in the history of science and is completely indefensible. If you’re after the truth, it cannot be built on huge lies, ‘adjusted’ historical records, rigged enquiries, suppression of questions and complete dismantling of the scientific process.

          If you bother to *actually* seek the truth, you will switch sides.

    • Latimer Alder

      Typo:

      You meant to say

      ‘And allowance has to be made for the propaganda effort financed by NGOs who don’t want to reduce their power or income or careers or taxpayer-funded Xmas shopping trips to Paris in kerosene guzzling jet aircraft’

      Time to remember this cuddly little number. Epitomises the greenists in all their fascist glory: Blowing up kids who don’t follow the agenda

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM

      And no – its not a spoof. They really did make this. Ba*tards.

      • Ivor MacAdam

        And, Mr. Alder, it was apparently made by Richard Curtis (a BBC luvvie) who alledgedly wrote the “Blackadder” programmes. But then it was banned, after a large number of complaints.

        • flaxdoctor

          Banned by whom?

    • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

      Every year volcanoes have been dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and they have been doing it a lot longer than humankind.

      • freddiethegreat

        Tax them!

    • William Brown

      Thus spake ‘Green Wyvern’, ffs…

    • Mr B J Mann

      The earth is NOT warming up – this is as firmly established as any scientific fact about the weather could possibly be.

      The High Priests of GW, Massagers the Sacred Records, have admitted as much in their emails to each other and the notes in their program code!

      • rtj1211

        It all depends on the time period you focus on – as Bob Carter has so eloquently shown in slides over the years.

        Past 18 yrs 10 months; no change.

        Past 38 years: increase.

        Past 200 years: increase.

        Past 900 years: cooling.

        Past 10,000 years: cooling.

        At least if you agree on the proxy temperature data and its veracity……

    • freddiethegreat

      The earth is warming up – no, it isn’t.

      Every year human beings have been dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases – no, CO2 ISN’T a greenhouse gas and is only 0.038% of the atmosphere

      • R M

        CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas?

        How did you reach this conclusion? Was it by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling?

        Take a trip down to your local school. If you’re lucky, they’ll oblige and show you a rudimentary demo that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Large corporations whose industries produce “green” products – higkly polluting rare earths and scarce metals for solar panels and wind turbines – have a very strong financial incentive to prevent any de-regulation.

      THEY, plus NGOs, are pouring millions of dollars all the time into funding Climate-change organizations, creating PRO-climate-change talking points, publicizing them through media organizations which are friendly to “green” corporations, and lobbying governments. These are also facts.

      This means that any argument about climate change has to be very carefully and critically examined, and allowance has to be made for the propaganda effort financed by “green” corporations and NGOs who NEED to reduce emissions, because otherwise that would reduce their profits.!

      There:

      Fixed it for you!

    • Ivor MacAdam

      “The earth is warming up…” but only if you take the known, accurate data, then reduce the older temperatures, and increase the newer temperatures. Then, it is blindingly obvious that the “published” data “proves” the point. Easy really. (Ref: NOAA).

    • Nick

      Sorry,but everything you written in your post is wrong.

    • flaxdoctor

      The earth is warming up? You have an odd view of scientific ‘fact’.
      On a 18 year timeframe, NO.
      On a 1000 year timeframe then? NO.
      On a 2000 year timeframe? NO.
      On a 60 million year timeframe NO.

      Quit cherrypicking and stop lying about ‘large corporation funding’ – trillions of tax dollars are being spewed on so-called greening measures – large corporations love this because they can make fantastic profits from this idiotic largesses without having to make anything that is actually useful or beneficial to anybody, least of all the environment. Examples are wind turbines, solar panels, coal-powered cars, wheelie bins, private airports with catering facilities for 40,000 climate change officials…

  • Cheddarcakes

    The majority of greenhouses gases created are expelled out of the behinds of animals or are derived from intensive farming methods and the burning of vast tracts of this planet to grow so called green crops. Try to explain to a libtard any of this and they have a fit and insist it is ‘evil’ cars and airplanes or coal fired plants that are to blame

    • ohforheavensake

      The majority of greenhouses gases tend to stay in greenhouses.

    • ohforheavensake

      The majority of greenhouses gases tend to stay in greenhouses.

    • flaxdoctor

      Ruminant methanogenesis happens primarily in the rumen. That’s at the front, resulting in belching of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (H/T BB-poxy-C), NOT farting.

  • whs1954

    This is a nice argument but view it the other way round. Here are some Frenchmen and women, on a night out, butchered in cold blood. Mr Delingpole feels empathy for the dead who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and cannot understand how anyone could set about apologising for Muslims and saying not all Muslims are killers.

    In a very short period of time – perhaps tonight – a British bomb will explode in Syria, aimed at ISIS. Inevitably, some British bomb pretty soon will kill an innocent Syrian civilian who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of us will defend that action as being aimed at terrorists. We will say British destruction is not indiscriminate and we are not simply after blood. Some will say, not all Britons agree with the military action, not all Britons are killers.

    Have the two arguments not some equivalence? Yes – but no.

    The way to defend this is to realise that this is a war of values. Our values, and theirs. Western values, and Islamist values. Our values are better than theirs, full stop, end of sentence. So when ISIS deliberately murder innocent Frenchmen in the pursuit of Islamism, but we accidentally kill an innocent Syrian in the combat of Islamism – the aim is different, one is nobler than the other, one set of values must be defeated and the other must triumph.

    Do not vacate the field, Mr Delingpole, to the likes of Corbyn to argue a death is a death is a death, and that we’re all murderers and just as bad as ISIS.

    • Jambo25

      Superb. I couldn’t agree more.

    • Jock Wright

      Eloquently said

  • LG

    If you really think humans have only produced 3.7% of CO2, as some posters have said (without citation obviously), where do you think all the CO2 is coming from?

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

    • Mr B J Mann

      Where do you think it is going then.

      Last I heard they only knew where two thirds of it went.

      Have the found which sink/s have been absorbing the rest yet?

      • LG

        Have you looked at the graph? Clearly most of it is ending up in the atmosphere.

        • Mr B J Mann

          A) so you’re guessing.

          Which bit of they don’t know where a third goes did you struggle with?!

          B) Mauna Loa is a volcano:

          Volcanoes emit CO2!

          What a stupid place to monitor CO2 levels?!?!?!!!!!

          Almost as stupid as measuring temperatures in the middle of a city, in a car park, between a car exhaust and an air conditioning heat exchange unit!!!!!!

          Like wot the world’s top GW “scientists” do!

          C) did you know there are hundreds of gra

          • R M

            Okay then. Show us these CO2 graphs which don’t show a clear increase.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Show us the original, raw, unadjusted data.

            Oh, you can’t:

            The warmers were caught out plotting to destroy the evidence if there was any danger of them being released!

            But, as hasa been shown by others on these threads:

            There’ still enough evidence available that the warmers graphs are a scam.

            They have even put them into an award wining propagand movie they use to brainwash kids.

            But it only takes a superficial examination to see the graph shows the opposite of what it’s claimed to show!!!

          • R M

            You want me to repeat my question? Oh, okay. Show me the data which doesn’t show a clear increase.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You want me to repeat my question?

            Oh, okay:

            Show us the original, raw, unadjusted data.

            Oh, you can’t:

            The warmers were caught out plotting to destroy the evidence if there was any danger of them being released!

            But, as hasa been shown by others on these threads:

            There’ still enough evidence available that the warmers graphs are a scam.

            They have even put them into an award wining propagand movie they use to brainwash kids.

            But it only takes a superficial examination to see the graph shows the opposite of what it’s claimed to show

          • R M

            You can find the raw data at the site cited by the graph, plus the source code used to objectify it. Whoops!
            Now where’s the contradictory data?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Raw, unmassaged, unadjusted, un corrected, original………..?!

          • R M

            Yes.
            Why didn’t you answer my question again?

          • Mr B J Mann

            8< – – – – – – – – – – – –

    • jaxon64

      The big mind-screw is the supposition that CO2 is bad or a “pollutant”…CO2 is plant food–CO2 increases vegetation and the great lungs of our atmosphere-plants and foliage…life on earth could not exist with CO2.
      Unfortunately CO2 is still so very miniscule it has to be measured in parts per million….example: .0000040053% of our atmosphere…to clarify that for those of you who are still scared of the life enabling gas CO2, if you had a desk 64 inches long, pluck a hair from your head and lay it perpendicular to the edge of the front line. Now the entire length of the desk would represent our atmosphere and the width of that hair would be the current CO2 levels at .000004%

      • LG

        Whether CO2 is a plant food is hardly the issue. The issue is the human induced 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 70’s and the consequences of the human induced spike in atmospheric CO2 to levels unprecedented in human history. Look at the graph over the last 800,000 years.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I you’re worried about the MMGWers’ CO2 graph:

          I one of the hundreds of others!

  • LG

    Global surface temperature record. I think we can safely say the temperature IS warming.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

    • Mr B J Mann

      So how come the world’s top climate scientists, keepers of the world’s hallowed temperature records, were admitting to themselves, and noting in their models’ programme code, THAT THERE WAS NO WARMING!

      Or is your graph further proof that they have been “improving” their “data”?!

      • LG

        Do you think that by cherry picking one particular data point, e.g. an outlier, that you can claim that the overall trend isn’t upward? You do realise that this year will be the hottest year in human history? How is that consistent with no warming? If you chose either year either side of your chosen start point, you have no pause. You can understand the graph I posted cant you? The year data point are erratic but the overall trend line is clearly upward.
        Also, your ‘no warming’ claim, despite being statistically flawed, is based on surface air temperature data alone. It doesn’t consider the effect of ocean temperature subduction.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Which bit of:

          “So how come the world’s top climate scientists, keepers of the world’s hallowed temperature records, were admitting to themselves, and noting in their models’ programme code, THAT THERE WAS NO WARMING!”

          “Or is your graph further proof that they have been “improving” their “data”?!”

          Did you struggle with?!

      • R M

        What are you blathering about? The globe is still warming and the data bears that out. The Daily Mail is not a scientific journal. Here’s NASA’s dataset:

        http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/293-global-warming-future-timeline.gif

        • Mr B J Mann

          Helloooooooo!!!!!!!!!

          As you’ve obviously missed it:

          The warmers secret emails and programme code notes were hacked years ago and revealed the conspiracies!

          Also, contrary to popular myth, they have been subjected to nunerour enquiries by their supportive peers but NONE OF THEM HAVE CONFIRMED MMGW!!!!!

          In fact all of them say something like:

          On the evidence they’ve looked at (ie not all the evidence) they could see no conclusive proof ( ie there might be some, but they hadn’t spotted it) that they had DELIBERATELY tried to c0n the scientific community or the public.

          It was just that.what they were doing involved very complicated statistics.

          And they just weren’t up to doing the math!

          • R M

            Give an example of a piece of evidence for this conspiracy.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Conspirators refusing to read any news that undermines their world view?!

        • Mr B J Mann

          PS the only one refering to the Daily Wail here is you!

    • flaxdoctor

      Correction. WAS. Until 18 and a half years ago.
      Not IS.

    • jaxon64

      For what its worth–take it as you may but it is fact–in 1984 the World Meteorological Organization removed 17 of its remote locations which were factored into the overall data. ALL of these stations were located above 39.5% latitude ( most in the Antarctic, Siberia or northwest territories of Canada)..the result? a sudden “spike” in the global temps and the creation of the GW craze…
      10,000 years ago New York state was buried under ice sheets almost a half mile thick ( evidenced by massive boulders being pushed south for hundreds of miles)…We have been warming since–fortunately, we are warming at miniscule amounts now compared to historical eras before.
      My weather in my hometown may vary 30 to 40 degrees in a single day from the middle of the night until the middle of day…….our hometown temps may drop into the negative numbers in January and stay frozen for 2 to 3 months straight….our summers usually see high 80’s to a week or two of 90’s during the dog days of summer- an annual variance of over 100 degrees in temperature.
      Yet you Earth/Gaia worshippers in your eco-cult are convinced that a less than 1 degree temp change over appx 100 years will be the end of us….there is no fixing a broken leftist brain…just befuddling to ponder the vacuous level of illogic and refusal to even consider fact once they get their hardheld beliefs in place ( hence the “religion” moniker.)

      • LG

        You’re not really getting the idea of ‘global’ climate. It’s not really concerned with your ‘hometown’. No doubt the ecosystem that inhabit the area around your hometown are well adapted to living within that temperature band (unless you haven’t already killed them all like the buffalo) – but most ecosystems are much less adapted to such wild swings. If the climate changes over thousands of years, ecosystems can change and adapt. But the current rate of climate change is unprecedented and many ecosystems will not cope. Yes, life will continue to exist and adapt, likely in altered states. The question is whether the resultant sudden change to the world’s ecosystems will be consistent with our continued civilisation.

        • jaxon64

          Are you being deliberately obtuse or is the use of analogous dialogue beyond the level of the recent dumbed-down graduate of what is referred to as “higher education” in America today?
          PS: neither of the graphs you posted coincide anywhere near the actual data—these numbers you have pasted are even higher than the faked numbers that the “earth scientists” were caught fictitiously creating when it was time for their new federal funding theft.
          WARM is GOOD—humans thrive, food grows, animals thrive ( even polar bear population has grown 500%!!) The only bad I can see is the unhealthy growth of populace on the planet. Of course those numbers are often skewed also as Europeans, americans, African-americans, Chinese etc populations are in decline but masses of growth in India, muslim nations, sub Saharan countries and S American nations have swelled the civilized world’s ranks.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Bwahahajahaha

          I remember seeing two BBC documentaries in the same evening.

          One about climate change warning we were all going to die because of an unprecedented climate change of a fraction of a degree over a century.

          The other about how mankind ha almost been wiped out by a sudden climate change of several degrees over a few decades, possibly just a few years.

          Which ended with the standard warning that we should take that as a warning and believe all the guff about MMGW.

          That would be like the unprecedented temperature rise?!

    • Vector

      These look like the “post adjustment” figures. An interesting feature of which is that the early dates predominantly had downward adjustments, and the more recent ones had upward adjustments.

      This is not science. It has another, special, name: fraud.

      • R M

        Just saying so doesn’t make it true. You have to give actual evidence to back up your claims.

  • Nick

    Another excellent article which blows away the climate change myth.

  • Nick

    The global warming myth is simply another religion,just like Christianity or islam.

    People will believe the climate change stories just like the ancient Greeks believed in the Odyssey and Jason and the Argonauts.But one day,they will tell tales to their grand children about the monster corporations and the evil right wingers who tried to destroy the world.

    And all the world will do,is keep on hurtling through time and space while a bunch of carbon based bipeds argue with and kill each other because of the crazy religions they believe in.

    All you global warming,climate change believers need to grow up and stop being so childish.

    • Daidragon

      Global warming is happening. The evidence is incontravertible. The debate is about how much of it is man made and how much a natural, inevitable event.

      • Nick

        The evidence is most certainly not incontrovertible and you know as well as I do that it has been systematically ripped apart by many eminent scholars.

        It’s a religion and you either believe in it or you don’t.

        • red2black

          Religion means rejoining with God. A good few years ago I read an article that said the power of the sun oscillates, and at the moment we are at a zenith, and that we are making the situation worse by using fossil fuels, clearing vast swathes of jungle, etc.

          • Nick

            What’s your point?

          • red2black

            Global warming and climate change aren’t a religion.
            The explanation given for successive global warming and cooling due to oscillation in the sun’s power seemed reasonable enough to me.

          • Nick

            Yes and they seem reasonable to me as well.So do the arguments against these theories as well.

        • Daidragon

          The old testament God might have been able to part the Red sea but the icecaps melting, alpine glaciers retreating and year in year out temperature rises are down to global warming. It’s not a myth or religion. It’s happening.

          • Nick

            No it isn’t.

          • Airey Belvoir

            You should be happy that we have the great good fortune to be living between two Ice Ages.

          • Vector

            Antarctica is not melting. One relatively minor segment, which is sitting on top of a large amount of volcanic activity, is losing some volume, the rest is getting more and more ice coverage. The northern icecap appears to have fairly short term year to year changes (and Polar Bear populations are growing now the animals are no longer being shot). Glaciers have been retreating for a very long time and even though we are emerging from the Little Ice Age it appears that temperatures are actually not rising. Which is rather concerning since there are tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths annually because of cold, but, it appears, none due to heating. Also the increase in carbon dioxide has resulted in better crops, reduction of the areas of deserts and possibly increased rainfall.

            However, this threatens to overthrow the latest belief of the gullible left whose successive clay-footed gods (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Allende, central planning, mass re-education, Cultural Revolution, Five Year Plan, Great Leap Forward) have serially failed, usually with large numbers of deaths.

        • R M

          Which eminent scholars?

          • Nick

            Look them up like I did.

          • R M

            So noone then.

      • LG

        I don’t think there’s any doubt anymore. Look at the CO2 records from Mauna Loa. CO2 has spiked since the start of the industrial revolution and so has global temperature. 2015 is set to be the warmest year in human history and still the denialist idiots say there’s been no warming

        • Mr B J Mann

          Mauna Loa is a volcano that spouts out CO2.

          Temperature spikes CAUSE CO2 spikes.

          Even the inner circle of the highest priests of the MMGW religion have admitted in their private emails and the notes in their models’ program code that warming ended a couple of decades ago and they can’t explain why.

        • Airey Belvoir

          I would be more impressed with the Warmists if they ever, at any point, published the data that says a small increase in temperature would also bring many benefits in terms of food production etc. But no – warmer is worse!

          • R M

            Um. But it will also cause negative effects in areas which will become too warm to grow crops.

            Warmer also means more frequent extreme weather events and higher sea levels, neither of which is desirable.

            Alarmism is misplaced but it’s still going to cause more economic and human problems than it alleviates.

          • starfish

            And yet the world seems to be ‘greening’ and producing more crops during this period of CO2 poisoning

            Ho hum

    • red2black

      There was a TV programme on recently that showed the story of Jason and the Argonauts was credibly based on events in real life. Much deeper waters at the time made their journey possible, and the Golden Fleece appears to have been based on a type of sieve or filter made from sheepskins to separate grains of gold out of silt – a technique still used today.

      • Latimer Alder

        There’s a huge difference between ‘based upon’ and being an accurate historical record.

        Is there some truth that increased CO2 causes the Earth to warm? Sure. Arrhenius discovered that 100 years ago.

        But that doesn’t mean that any story of imminent Thermageddon ‘based upon’ Arrhenius’s unremarkable discovery should be taken as gospel truth.

        Any more than the idea that Jason sowed dragons teeth in a field and they sprouted to become warriors is true because Georgians used sheepskin to capture gold nuggets from their rivers.

        ‘Based upon’ is a very dangerous phrase. To be treated with the utmost suspicion.

        • red2black

          An accurate historical record? I think it’s quite evident that people long ago told and wrote stories based on actual events. Most things are based on something previous.

          • Latimer Alder

            I agree. Few stories are entirely fictional.

            But that doesn’t mean that all aspects of the stories are true

          • red2black

            Of course it doesn’t.

          • Latimer Alder

            Then we are in complete agreement. Huzzzah!

          • red2black

            Yes!

      • Nick

        Again,what’s your point?

        • red2black

          There’s more to life than dividing people into two camps.

          • Nick

            Well that made a lot of sense.

          • red2black

            Those who believe there’s global warming and climate change, and those that don’t.

    • R M
  • mikewaller

    In asking rhetorically “Will nobody rid us of this turbulent idiot?” I have to stress that I am appealing to God, if there is one, not armed thugs, members of the royal entourage or otherwise. I have always thought JD nuts on global warming (if scientists are that powerful, why can they not force the government to bring in the deeply desirable sugar duty that would raise lots of cash, make us thinner and save the NHS a packet?); however his stuff on UK Muslims really takes the biscuit. Unless his choice of costume when going to fancy dress parties is of a type that has got other people into a lot of trouble but in his case reflects his core beliefs, I cannot see that he has any policies to offer that would take the UK back to the ethnic composition of, say, 1950. The number of Muslims now living in the UK is around the 3 million mark but if you reflect on the amount of mayhem caused to us by republican terrorists embedded in a far smaller Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland, it is obvious that of that 3 million only a very tiny proportion have any truck with terrorism. Indeed, one of the recordings made at the tube station last night has one passer-by saying to the knife-wielder, “Bro, you ain’t no Muslim” which is highly suggestive of the speaker being a Muslim himself. Given the global rise of Muslim terrorism, it is absolutely vital for our safety that we maintain the present state of affair amongst Muslims who are, in fact, one of the primary sources of information about terrorist plots. And what could upset that fortunate state of affairs? Bloody idiots like Delingpole who writes like a rabid Hindu Nationalist rather than a thoughtful contributor to a serious magazine. What makes things more worrying is that he seems to ring the bells of a small army of other idiots on this list.

    • JulenOchoa

      30% UK muslims think UK should be subject to sharia law. 27% have sympathy with islamic terrorists. One obvious policy: no more muslim immigration.

      • mikewaller

        The obverse of your first statistic is that 70% of Muslims either have no view on the question or are opposed to the idea of Sharia law being introduced. Even with the 30%, are we talking about its acceptance at a low level or totally superseding the British legal system? As for sympathy with terrorists, is that the full-blooded underwriting of all ISIS’s despicable activities or sympathy towards Palestinian activists who are using violent means to regain land they have lost to the Israelis?

        Certainly we now have a range of problems domestically that would not have arisen had no Muslims come to this country; however what exactly do you propose in detail should be done about it, remembering all the time that massively alienating those already here is a very much less than a smart move?

        • JulenOchoa

          Any reasonable muslim would have no problem with no more muslim immigration since they would understand that we cannot tolerate more people here whose culture is incompatible with liberty.

          • mikewaller

            Do you not realize how daft that observation is? Muslims believe what Muslims believe and the fact that some of their number have no truck with values you and I hold dear does not mean that the great mass of Muslims would not welcome more of their fellow believers joining them in the West. That is why it is so hard to further stem the flow without alienating those already here. In the UK, the best prospect lies in the resentment now being expressed by non-European immigrants about the more recent inflow of Eastern European immigrants. Should it prove possible to restrict that, who could reasonably complain if other inflows were also clamped down on? However short of leaving the EU, that is a very, very hard nut to crack.

          • JulenOchoa

            Leave the EU. As I said, reasonable muslims would not turn themselves into camouflage
            for the terrorists by agitating but would agree we can’t afford any more
            coming in. All you are saying is no muslims are reasonable. Fine, in that case alienate them. You, on the other hand,want to give them special privileges because they are unreasonable. I want them to assimilate but if they refuse, they must still obey our law and stop demanding special privileges, and be prosecuted for their incitements to violence and murder.

          • mikewaller

            Either you are every young or very daft. Look where alienating the Catholics got us in Northern Ireland. You may want up to 10,000 terrorist incidents a year as is said to have been the case during the height of the “Troubles”, but I don’t. I am offering no special privileges to Muslims but merely suggesting that the kind of crap offered up by JD and yourself would be a disastrous way forward. You and he might usefully see if growth hormone has beneficial psychological effects.

    • Jacobi

      I suspect God has more troublesome things to worry about such as evil and those distorted religious heresies such as Islam who perpetrate it, not to mention others of bad judgement who feel they have to support such distortions.

      • mikewaller

        God, again if there is one, would surely spend sometime putting straight delusionists who distort everything they come across to fit their own narrow frames of reference. For my part, I have no more time for the desperately cruel behaviour of ISIS etc than I would have had for that of the Spanish Inquisition or the murderous religious bigots once found in the UK.

        • Jacobi

          Since you seem to have a direct line through to God, don’t forget to discuss the murderously Secularist atheistic bigots such as Marxist Socialists and Nazis in the UK and elsewhere, compared with whom the Inquisition was minor. And of course others such as at present those who destroy the unborn. Now I could go on, but that’s enough for your chat with Himself at present.

          • mikewaller

            Don’t forget to throw in the Caucasians (I am one) whose kind in recent centuries have spread across the globe securing their own advantage by dispossessing and murdering native peoples.

          • Jacobi

            I’m shocked! On the other hand you cannot be held responsible for the actions of another, even if an ancestor. Now where did I read that beyond 4 or is it 5 generations we are all related to each other? so there, you mustn’t develop scruples you know.
            But by all means mention it during one of your chats with Himself.
            Which part of the Caucasus are you from?. Never been there.
            Now Mike we are beginning to go round in circles, so lets leave it there, but by all means have the last word.

          • mikewaller

            I only accept your kind offer on the basis that I know my words will be wasted. Even in my godless state it somehow seems wrong that someone so grievously afflicted with ignorance should be left, their condition unameliorated. However, what cannot be changed must be endured, so farewell.

  • Richard Lally

    Why are right wing people so obsessed with denying global warming?
    Do they think it is some kind of socialist plot?

    • Jacobi

      I wouldn’t know, but objective observers, who are neither of the right nor the left, who simply stand back and look at the facts, as opposed to the hype, realise that the whole climate change argument is simply not demonstrable

      • R M

        No they don’t?

    • Stu

      What a stupid comment. Even the most ardent sceptics believe that some form of temperature change may be happening. It always has from warm periods to ice ages. Sceptics like me question, whether it is 1) man made and 2) catastrophic.
      Your second comment is beyond stupid if you imagine it’s just the right. Ask Piers Corbyn his opinion on man made global warming.

      • R M

        It’s certainly man made. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. You can do a very simple experiment to prove this to yourself. And there has been a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last century. The data there is unequivocal. So… there’s a substance that captures heat. And the amount of it in the atmosphere has increased. Can you do the math?

        As to “catastrophic”, no it will not be “catastrophic”. That’s a straw man. Nobody is talking about the Earth catching fire. That is not the consensus. However, it will cause significant problems, like sea level rises, desertification, and more frequent extreme weather events, which will have a substantial economic and human cost.

        • Stu

          So we have a doubling of Carbon dioxide over the last century and the precise effect has been, not very much. I do love your certainty that this is all man made. Trouble with real science is that it’s never actually certain about anything in terms of predicting the future based on a system as complex as the earths atmosphere.
          As for catastrophic, it’s not a straw man in any way. Point out where I suggested the earth would catch fire. Can’t, perhaps you need to do the English.
          If you had said may cause significant problems I would have been more inclined to listen to you arguments but given that scientist have in the recent past predicted an Ice age and the fact that acid rain would leave us denuded of trees. I will reserve my judgement until more substantial science that doesn’t rely on gerrymandering temperature records and ignoring past fluctuations in climate like the medieval warm period comes along.

          • R M

            “So we have a doubling of Carbon dioxide over the last century and the precise effect has been, not very much.”

            The effect has been noticeable, and in the mid- to long-term it will have significant negative effects on the human population.

            “As for catastrophic, it’s not a straw man in any way. Point out where I suggested the earth would catch fire. Can’t, perhaps you need to do the English.”

            You didn’t, but you said “catastrophic”, and the Earth catching fire is a metaphor for that. There won’t be any kind of catastrophe and most climate scientists do not claim that there will be.

          • Jacobi

            @ Stu,

            I have often joked that in my miserable frozen windy rain soaked part of the UK we need a plus 3 degrees centigrade. Having looked further into what my Prof explained to us when I was a student, I now see he was slightly wrong. The temperatures actually rose much higher than he thought. But in fairness he did not then have the ice core data available.

            In fact they were 2.5 degrees higher in the warm Roman period than now, almost what I have been urgeing, and every enjoyed it. Commercial vineyards flourished in Yorkshire, of all places!

            Noticed that when actual measureable facts, such as direct temperature measurement don’t seem to fit the preconceived theory, (temperatures actually falling) the focus shifts. In this case away from temperature and to a minute increase in CO2, completely ignoring other probably more major factors such as water vapour, climate patterns, nitrogen dioxide, and methane. The question, is this small, increase a result for these other factors, of course is never asked!

            Yes we must all reserve our judgement for a while, 50 years or so.

          • Stu

            No noooooooooo, it’s going to be a cataclysm, we have hockey sticks, Phil Jones and Keith Briffa to prove it.

            Totally agree with you but I think the mantra of the warmists, is why let a measurable fact get in the way of money making hysteria.

    • The PrangWizard of England

      Oooooo yes please, make so.

    • Jacobi

      I agree. It is only we centrists whom look at the facts objectively. Sad.

    • 30characters

      Isn’t it then?

  • Captain Dryland

    Cancer did not enter the Bataclan theatre and mow down 80 people. Cancer did not massacre 164 people in Mumbai. I presume that by Mr Delingpole’s reasoning we should therefore conclude that nothing ought to be done about cancer.

    • Jacobi

      I think his argument is that something drastic should be done about both!

    • sandy winder

      Cancer kills people. Islamists kill people. Climate change (whether it is even happening or not) does not kill people. Climate change is perfectly natural and occurs over thousands of years giving people time to adjust to it. Man trying to stop the climate changing is just tilting at windmills, especially if over 7 billion people (and rising) are the culprits, which has not been proven. But if it were then the obvious answer is to take steps to limit global population. That is not to say that alternative energy is bad. Quite the reverse. But it must be efficient or else it will lead to massive rises in energy bills (as it is doing) that hit the poor the most.

    • woolfiesmiff

      He said that the polticos claim that Climate change is the BIGGEST threat to humanity. Delingpole just said no it isnt. Terrorism is bigger. So is cancer, heart disease, so is flu, in fact EVERYTHING is a bigger threat than climate change .

      You clearly dont understand “reasoning”

    • rtj1211

      I don’t think you can argue that someone has died of cancer. You can argue as to whether people will die of climate change or not. In fact, if you have any sense, you will argue that far, far more people will die of cold than will die of ‘global warming’……

  • Bertie Wooster

    A modern liberal will defend to the death your right to agree with him. Disagree, and he will call the police.

    • eat your greens

      This page is proof of that.

  • Sean L

    But you don’t “feel viscerally about this stuff” because of an “evidence-based, logic-driven view of the world”. Quite the opposite. Warmists and Islamists can and do argue their case on evidence and logic but from different premisses, their feelings no less ‘visceral’ than yours.

    Logic and evidence by definition can’t in themselves summon such emotion. That arises from belonging and allegiance. No mere *argument* will sway a committed member of group X (in this case the Ummah) to identify more with members of group Y (us). It’s what constitutes membership of such groups that’s at issue. And this is hardly a matter of logic or evidence.

    To suggest otherwise actually puts you more in the liberal left camp yourself. Because that’s precisely what the bien-pensant himself would argue, that there’s no logical or evidence-based reason to value an inoccent life lost in Paris more than in Homs or Mosul, say. Indeed it’s a spurious attachment to such rationalist ideals over and above feelings of local and national allegiance that accounts for such bien-pensant attitudes in the first place.

    This applies as much in the sphere of “climate change” as in the ‘correct’ attitude to Islam, both of which are disdainful of traditional allegiances. Leftism is itself a symptom of elevating rationalist ideals over traditional notions of kith and kin. That you feel impelled to argue in such terms only shows how in thrall you are to PC orthodoxy in spite of yourself.

  • Jacobi

    Delingpole’s article regarding Climate Change and Islam is a good summation of the issues.

    The Climate Change argument is a scientific shambles. As more people look at he evidence objectively, scepticism is growing and rightly so, in spite of the near hysteria being employed by what is now recognised as being a self-promoting, finance-attracting, and increasingly unscientific industry

    As for Islam, in spite of the inevitable and predictable responses from the Islamophile “Luvvies” it is obvious to anyone who cares to just look that this is an evil which we in the West are confronted with whether we like it or not. This has now to be realised by all, Christians, atheists, Islamophiles, everyone.

  • gelert

    Let’s hope the FN will prevail next Sunday in France and begin the downfall of the corrupt EU and the rule of the bien-pensant French “intelligentsia”.

  • yaosxx

    This isn’t off topic ( I hope) but a propos “climate change” and Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” which I’m reading slowly, I can now see why Liberal’s of a certain bent taken in by the CC hoax, absolutely hate her! She hung a large mirror in their faces to reveal their twisted methods.
    The passage in the book is almost a couple of hundred pages in, a new form of steel has been manufactured but a diktat by the “Science Institute” has all but condemned it much to the chagrin of our heroine Dagny Taggart who needs it to build a new railway. In desperation she goes to the Institute to speak to the Director whom she’d met before to find out how he could have condoned such a statement. When pressed by Dagny that Science should be based on Facts, his answer is a revelation – this is some of the dialogue:

    “There are other issues involved besides questions of fact”(Dr Robert Stadler)
    “What other issues is science concerned with besides questions of fact?” (Dagny)
    “You do not understand the problems of scientists” (Stadler)
    “We are dealing with a matter of science” (Dagny)
    “Science?
    Aren’t you confusing the standards involved? It is only in the realm of
    pure science that truth is an absolute criterion, When we deal with
    applied science, with technology – we deal with people. And when we deal
    with people, considerations other than truth enter the question” (!!!) (Stadler)

    “in
    times like these when their fat little comforts are threatened you may
    be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice” (!!!) (Stadler)

    PLUS CA CHANGE…etc.

  • Mordhorst

    “our own evidence-based, logic-driven view of the world”

    That’s rather funny coming from someone talking about “warmists”.

    Just for the record, I’m a leftist who reacts far more emotional to islamist terrorism than to climate change. Which everybody does, regardless of being left or right, because it simply is easier to relate to human suffering than some distant future problems, big or not. But keep on ignoring reality if you need to to tell a nice story.

    • yaosxx

      “our own evidence-based, logic-driven view of the world”

      “That’s rather funny coming from someone talking about “warmists”

      What a confused comment! No it’s not funny actually! “Warmists” thrive on “evidence-free, illogical” views of the World especially seen through the eyes of non-existent anthropogenic climate change!.
      But when you say “keep on ignoring reality” then you quite clearly haven’t understood (or read?) the article because that is the whole premise of the article – THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO IGNORE REALITY!

      • Mordhorst

        Lol yes, idiots like you which simply choose to ignore facts give conservatives a bad name. See science agrees, there is nothing to discuss. Its like debating about evolution.

        What we can discuss about is what to do or not to do. It is a completely valid position if you think that we should simply try to cope with the consequences when we need to instead to try to prevent to much global warming. I wouldn’t agree but I would take you serious. But denial ist just for cranks.

        Btw emotions and climate change, I think he confused the sides of the debate. 😛

        • yaosxx

          You’ re like a “warmist” cliche, churning out the same bilge – one doubts if the comment has even come from a human being! Timewaster!

          • Mordhorst

            I know, discussing with cranks and other true believers is a complete waste of time. Your obsessions are not open to discussion anyway.

          • yaosxx

            What a laugh! A warmist who obviously isn’t aware of how his ilk are constantly shrieking at us “it’s not up for debate – the sceance (sic) is settled”! LOOOOOLLLLLEEEDDD!
            You’ve contradicted yourself anyway in your comment – don’t know whether you’re coming or going! Sad, very sad!

          • Mordhorst

            Science is never really settled – but it is pretty safe to say that you won’t challenge the current scientific consensus.

            Denialists are a cult, they behave exactly like 9/11-truthers, creationists, antisemites, vegans etc. pp. Every “discussions” starts with the same old worthless arguments, eventually you get links to 2h long youtube videos. No thanks.

          • Alex Carter

            If you think that scientific consensus is how science actually works, you’ve confused science with dogma. Science works on falsifiable predictions. When global warming models can actually make a falsifiable prediction and it isn’t wildly off reality, then perhaps we can find our way to some kind of truth. Until then, sane people trust looking out of the window rather than at a computer model, because unlike computer models, windows can at least predict the present.

          • Mordhorst

            Of course a scientific consensus is always about what we are reasonable sure to know right now. And ignoring climate science until they have a computer model falsified by reality is telling them to call again in a hundred years, ignoring all other evidence they have. But thats just one of the usual bullshit talking points.

          • yaosxx

            Google translate from german into english kinda sucks, doesn’t it…

          • Neil2

            What consensus ?. The 97% that is really 2.4% ?.

          • Mordhorst

            Sorry too burst your bubble but it actually is a lot worse:

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

            99.9% – of course that’s just because of the far reaching conspiracy of us evil warmists!

          • Alex Carter

            Wrong again. It wouldn’t take 100 years, it would simply require a model that could take input data from the past and produce a climate resembling what we have now.

            And as people keep trying to tell you, just because you can form a consensus of people who already agree with you doesn’t mean you’re correct. It is the argument that consensus trumps reality that is bullshit, much like the ridiculous echo chamber mentality that produces death threats for MPs who don’t support your crackpot views. Which is what this whole article was about.

          • Mordhorst

            If thats all you expect I don’t see your problem, the climate models already work well with data of the past. The predictions made 20 years ago also weren’t far of. But it seems that those facts simply don’t exist in the echo chamber of the denialist sect.

            Also nobody ever argued that consensus trumps reality, it just means that you have the burden of proof that reality is different from the scientific consensus about it.

          • Alex Carter

            What? 20 years ago they predicted varying degrees of warming and there has been statistically none.

            I believe that also covers your second sentence.

          • Mordhorst

            Of course the predicted warming did happen. 2014 was the hottest year on record and 2015 will be even hotter. Even using 1998 with its very strong El Nino (like 2015) as baseline won’t allow you to bend the data until warming just disappears. And that’s just surface temperature anyway, the total global heat content of the earth rises steadier:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

          • yaosxx

            This is the graph you are looking for:

          • Mordhorst

            If there is a warming trend or not depends on where you start. Another problem with the surface data you are referring too: its not complete, especially the rapidly warming arctic is absent.

          • yaosxx

            You really show yourself up! It’s all about the “trend” not your ability to “cherrypick” what suits you!

            As for your “rapidly warming arctic” – another of your spurious statements, I think we can safely say we have not reached Al Gore’s ludicrous statement that the poles would have melted by 2014/2015! LOL!

          • Mordhorst

            You denialists are the ones which do the cherry picking. More data, different sources and different baseline, similar picture:

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global/2014/ann/timeseries/decadal-avgs.png

            There is still a significant warming in the last 20 years. You must do some serious violence to the data to convince it of your denialist agenda.

          • yaosxx

            You don’t know how incredibly stupid you sound when you use that ultimately meaningless word “denialist”!

            As for NOAA – well we all know about NOAA don’t we!

            “According to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who is leading a Congressional investigation into the infamous Karl et al 2015 “Pausebuster” study,
            NOAA whistleblowers have come forward, with information which cast
            doubt on the scientific integrity of NOAA’s global temperature
            reconstructions.

            According to the Washington Post;

            Smith told Pritzker that the whistleblowers’ allegations
            make it more crucial that he be provided with the scientists’ internal
            e-mails and communications. If NOAA does not produce the e-mails he is
            seeking by Friday, the chairman said, “I will be forced to consider use
            of compulsory process,” a threat to subpoena the commerce secretary
            herself.

            Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter,
            that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for
            Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the
            climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science
            and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

            “NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/19/is-noaa-about-to-crack/

          • Mordhorst

            “Denialists” is just a name for your sect which is nicer than most other names I can think of.

            So maybe a publication of a study was published without sufficient review. Well that certainly makes all data they publish worthless! Never mind that the denialists rarely ever even attempt to make it through a scientific review process. I guess they know why.

            Anything else which might explain away the fact that the temperature has been and still is rising?

          • yaosxx

            You’re talking poppycock as usual – give it up – it’s not clever! Or maybe you can explain why you need to talk poppycock all the time and not be clever – be my guest!

          • Sean L

            All that concluding sentence shows is that the burden of the English language and grammar rests no more easily with you than the scientific understanding.

          • Mordhorst

            Well show me some of your foreign language skills, I’m sure they are awe inspiring.

          • Sean L

            Kwanzia terehe ishirini na nane mwezi wa kumi na mbili nitakuwa likizoni Kitale.

          • Mordhorst

            Exotic language, but barely level A2.

          • rtj1211

            The predictions 20 years ago were absolutely miles off. Miles off. They are outside the 2SD margin for error of a 95% certainty that they are wrong. It’s called an 18 year 10 month pause when no warming has taken place……

          • Mordhorst

            No its not. Including 2015 which will set a new record, 14 out of the 15 hottest recorded years where in this century. How is that “no warming”?

            http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

          • yaosxx

            Total utter poppycock!

          • yaosxx

            There you go again – cliche after cliche!

            “See science agrees”,

            “there is nothing to discuss”.

            “Its like debating about evolution”

            ” denial ist (sic) just for cranks.” – JAWOHL MEIN HERR! (this bit is mine)

            “Denialists”
            “truthers”
            “creationists”
            “antisemites”

            I guess when you’ve run out of “warmist” cliches, you’ll have nothing more to say!

          • Mordhorst

            What you call cliche is what most people call reality. It can’t be original.

            And yes I’m switching between English and German here, I’m sorry if that lost teutonic t hurt your national feelings.

          • yaosxx

            “What you call cliche is what most people call reality. It can’t be original.”

            Rather like “Arbeit macht frei”… no doubt!
            Looks like you’ve been rumbled…

          • Mordhorst

            Whatever Mr dumbass.

          • yaosxx

            LOL! Run along you little Schweinhund – back to your eu propaganda Meister!

          • woolfiesmiff

            Yeh because scientific consensus has a long history of being proved right……. oh wait …er maybe….oh sh*t

            In my lifetime alone

            BSE – wrong
            Ozone Hole- Wrong
            Herpes- wrong
            Y2K – wrong
            Bird Flu-wrong
            Swine flu-wrong
            Acid Rain – wrong
            AIDs – wrong
            Trans Fats- wrong
            Cholesterol – wrong
            Fluoridation – wrong
            PCB’s -wrong
            Peak Oil- Wrong
            MMR – wrong
            Cell Phone radiation – wrong

            All of these things were predicted by scientific consensus would kill 100,000’s of people and/or alter the planet. Thats just a list from the last 30 years that I can remember of how scientific consensus has told us we’re all gonna die. NOT ONE of them came to pass.

          • Mordhorst

            Your memory obviously isn’t the best. Or you should start consuming a bit more reliable news outlets.

          • R M

            The ozone disaster never came to pass because there was an international effort to ban CFCs.

            Cretin.

          • yaosxx

            Look who’s being spiteful now! But that’s the trouble with you warmist trolls – you love to insult but don’t like it when it’s thrown back in your face!

          • R M

            That’s the trouble with you denialist trolls. Always trying to devolve the conversation into insults and away from the science. The ozone hole did not become a bigger problem because of successful environmental controls of the causes. This is extremely well established, scientifically and historically, and it’s astonishing that somebody could deny the basic facts here. Do you even disagree?

          • yaosxx

            “YAWN”! Go away – I stopped reading after “denialist”!

          • R M

            But I was just mirroring your use of the word “warmist”. Troll.

          • yaosxx

            There is no comparison! “Warmist” when used to refer to you guys simply refers to your penchant for always mistakenly believing that the Earth is warming up to spectacular temperatures. The “denialist” term is both spectacularly wrong and sinister. Wrong in the sense when it is used in conjunction with so called “climate change” – Climate has always changed, there are periods when the Earth was quite clearly warmer and periods when if was freezing cold – all happened without the aid of 4x4s or jumbo jets. No one is denying that this has ever happened, least of all “sceptics” like my self which is the right terminology for people like myself. When refered to as “denialists” in this respect, the reason for doing so is utterly misguided. Of course what is really meant by you and your ilk is “anthropogenic climate change” (which originally started off as global warming but since there was no global warming to record, climate change became the new term!). There is simply no viable proof that anthropogenic global warming exists in the manner you would like it to exist in and instead of referring to people who don’t go along with this hoax as “sceptics” the juvenile use of “denier” is used! Which comes to my last reason for its usage – the sinister reason. The word “denier” has come to be associated with the jewish holocaust in the concentration camps, referring to those who deny they were used for the purposes they were used as. One has to question the mentality, mental stability and ethics of people who feel the need to use the word in full knowledge of the way in which they are using it.

          • R M

            So you’re denying the existence of global warming, as well as anthropogenic global warming?

          • yaosxx

            You’re not the brightest spark in your family, are you…

          • R M

            I’m the first one to go to Cambridge, but that’s not really relevant. Care to answer the question?

          • yaosxx

            Judging by the behaviour and opinions of students and professors these days in Universities that really doesn’t mean anything – they ain’t what they used to be…
            As I’ve already mentioned, if you are too dim to get the answer to your question from my previous comment, then I can’t help you!

          • R M

            Why are you being so obstructive to rational discussion? I’m just asking you to clarify your position. Your refusal to do so is bizarre and your abhorrence to the question betrays a fear of communicating unambiguously and thus of having an intellectual, objective discussion rather than a rhetorical argument.

          • yaosxx

            – .

          • milford

            … scientists said Thalidomide was completely harmless.

          • 30characters

            Science is not, and never has been, a matter of “consensus”. The fact that you use the term demonstrates that you do not understand the scientific method. Science is not decided by opinion polling.

          • Mordhorst

            Lol and another anti-science crank teaching me about proper science. If I say that there is a scientific consensus it means just that, not that the consensus must be correct. But as long as you aren’t a climate scientist and produce a paper which you manage to get published in a peer reviewed journal I see no need to even look at your arguments against that consensus.

          • 30characters

            I’m going to be patient with you despite your tone. I repeat; it is not a question of whether some “consensus” is correct or not. Science is not a matter of “consensus”. It is not decided by polling. It is decided by something called the scientific method. This involves testing hypotheses against experiment or observed reality. I recommend the following clip if you are honestly interested in understanding how science works. It is by Richard Feynman, a genuine Nobel laureate and one of the greatest physicists of the 20th Century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBFZEYkzKXc
            Now, if you think you know better than Feynman then let’s hear why. Otherwise please don’t talk about scientific “consensus”. It has no meaning.

          • Mordhorst

            Come on, did you even read what I wrote?

          • 30characters

            Yes, I did. And then I explained why talking about a scientific “consensus” is meaningless. I even provided an explanation by one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century of why it’s meaningless And you failed to understand that. OK.

          • rtj1211

            Professor Bob Carter is an eminent geologist who has plenty of 10 minute Youtube clips demolishing the consensus of the IPCC……

          • Mordhorst

            10 minutes on YT won’t demolish anything but your remaining reputation. And a geologist is as qualified to talk about global warming as you and me.

            “Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter), born 1942 (age 72–73), is a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier.”
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

            So just another shill. I see he did some drilling for paleoclimatic data – but not for short term climate change. I actually happen to know a researcher which did those drillings for many years, I’d rather trust her. At least I know that she doesn’t get paid for her opinion.

          • R M

            You’re a spiteful person with no logical counterargument.

          • yaosxx

            Truth hurts!

        • rtj1211

          ‘Science’ doesn’t agree actually, there are two highly polarised positions, one from the warmists in Paris and one from the NGPCC, which is the alternative set of reports produced by more skeptical scientists. Please don’t say that these people aren’t ‘scientists’, many are Professors or Government scientists of equal eminence to those who claim the IPCC is God…..

          • Mordhorst

            No there aren’t two equally valid positions. There are serious scientists which agree about the basics while discussing the details and then there are a few nuts and more paid shills which hold very “alternative” views which aren’t taken serious. And this is true for most scientific subjects.

          • Goinlike Billio

            . There are people paid to have alternative views on most scientific subjects…
            Blimey It must be chaos in the laboratory. I have totally misunderstood scientists. I never even suspected.I’ll never trust that bloke in a white coat who does the Harpic ad again.

        • Leftism is a societal cancer

          It’s the left that ignores scientific fact.

          They ignore biological differences between men and women.
          They ignore biological differences between the races.

          They ignore studies that show that homosexuals are significantly more likely to have sexually abused as children.
          They believe all people are equal which is contrary to all the evidence.

          • Oysterman

            Your comments are the same as the thinking in National SociaIist Germany in the 1930’s

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            haha is that the best you have? Nothing I said in the post you are replying to is wrong.

          • Oysterman

            Based on your comment and what it is predicated on, my post is good enough to highlight what you’re really about!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            So like a good little brainwashed lefty you attack the man rather than seek the truth.

          • Oysterman

            You don’t know what political persuasion I lean to, however yours is very evident. The truth is what I’ve already said!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            The truth that you are hiding from yourself is that biological racial and sexual differences exist.

            It’s the left that ignores scientific fact for the ridiculous egalitarian ideology.

          • Oysterman

            I’m not hiding from anything. Of course there are physical and intellectual differences between us, however, for the purpose of civilisation we all equal and have the same rights. The human race doesn’t live in a world of natural selection, and to isolate ourselves from differences as you suggested in an earlier post is just small mindedness!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            Well we don’t all have the same rights. For example in the US there blacks/hispanics actually have more rights than whites due to AA.

            What does “for the purpose of civilisation we are all equal” mean in your eyes? If that means all people are equally capable of civilisation then you are very wrong!

            I don’t want to isolate ourselves from differences. I want to accentuate them and show people them. This is particularly true of vertical (hierarchical differences) which your egalitarianism ignores or attacks.

          • Oysterman

            Yes, I do mean all people are equally capable of civilisation. It’s whether people choose to, that is why we need laws to enforce those whom purposely wish not to, do!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            Well then you are wrong. Black africans have significantly lower IQs than, for example, whites and have never created an advanced civilisation in their history. They didn’t have the wheel, writing or two storey buildings before whites (or arabs) arrived.

          • Oysterman

            You’re arguing a different point! I’ve all ready said there are difference between people. Not necessary just between ethnicity. However, this last post really shows your prejudice. As for your analogy; what was Celtic Britain doing when the Egyptians were utilising the Nile for agriculture and creating engineering feats supassed by no other of that age! You haven’t taken account of evolution.

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            You actually think the Egyptians were black. LOL

          • Oysterman

            Nubian actually! They are very black! You should read you history and geography if you’re going to use it in debate!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            haha Christ you are thick. The Nubians were the slaves of the Egyptians.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGe4YlA8FyM

          • Oysterman

            Not as thick as you would like……obviously!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            I actually wish you weren’t so deluded.

          • Oysterman

            Just can’t win, you and left are telling me the same thing. It’s a mystery!

          • Oysterman

            Biggist load of erroneous propaganda I’ve seen, presented to support an abhorrent extreme right doctrine.

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            haha Christ you are ridiculous. You got any DNA evidence that ancient Egyptians were black?

          • Oysterman

            Who’s evidence? Something that’s been produced to suit your purpose! What a joke!

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            I’m giving you a chance to produce your own evidence. Seems like you don’t have any.

          • Oysterman

            Visit Aswan, see for yourself!

          • Oysterman

            Ps: your Caucasian genes originate from deep Middle Africa!

          • Johnnymcevoy

            And yet there are now more African millionaires than ever before.
            .
            They can’t be that stupid”…..

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            Impressive argument. Sure beats thousands of IQ tests in every country in the world.

            Also are you using absolute figures here? Because I suggest you look at population growth by race in the 20th century then.

      • R M
        • rtj1211

          Perhaps you’d like the data to go back to the birth of Jesus – it would be in a better climatological context?? Or go back 500 million years, that would be even more interesting…..especially the carbon dioxide data……

          • R M

            What?

          • yaosxx

            Forgotten how to read?

          • R M

            No.

          • yaosxx

            Glad to hear it.

        • yaosxx

          Ah yes – nicely massaged temp figure to produce the required graph! You know science isn’t about getting the results you want but about discovering what exists! But if you prefer to associate with corrupt mendacious scientists, what can I say?

          • Goinlike Billio

            He’s managed to get rid of the flat-lining for the last 18 years !
            He’s managed to find another tree ring !

          • R M

            Contrary evidence, that would have been a start.

        • Hamburger

          Which satellite was around in 1880?

          • R M

            What?

          • Hamburger

            Apparently, according to the graph from the NASA Institute of Space Studies, the data was first collected in 1880. Either they mixed their data, which would be very naughty, or there was satellite evidence in 1880.

          • R M

            But it’s not satellite data.

          • Hamburger

            Obviously, but what has it to do with space studies?

          • R M

            Earth is a planet and its atmosphere is of interest to astronomers.

          • Hamburger

            I think that they should stick to foreign bodies. There is already a huge industry in Earth Studies.

  • Davedeparis

    Spot on James! More than that what has struck me is the cold indifference to the deaths of our fellow Parisians I have found (mercifully rarely) in some teacher’s rooms here in Paris (Oh you have more chance of dying in a car crash blah, blah, blah) and the wild eyed passion from exactly the same individuals if you dare question the relevance or wisdom of the whole COP21 boondoggle. Computer models are speculative nonsense. Terror attacks are objective reality. In 1984 Orwell writes that the virtue of war is that the illusions of society hit the brick wall of reality.

    • noix

      I heard exactly the same from a lefty last night who had just come back from Paris.

    • rtj1211

      I think those on the Left can’t credit Establishment hierarchies claiming that 100 deaths in the West is unbelievable outrage but the West murdering millions abroad since 1950s is ‘just one of those things’.

      It basically says the Establishment see foreigners as subspecies, and that outrages the Left’s sense of humanity.

      • Davedeparis

        Firstly in education, media and the civil service the left is the establishment and has been for decades. Secondly it is flat out incorrect to claim “the West” has murdered millions of people “abroad” since the 1950s even taking the sloppiest definition of these terms. It is pure invention. Noam Chomsky however famously continues to deny the death of millions under Pol Pot while Mao (who killed more than all the combatants in World War II combined) is apparently cute and funny.

  • Neil2

    I have a head for thinking and a heart for pumping blood about and that’s the way I use them. “Liberals” who emote about everything and base their opinions on what makes the feel good make me sick. Unfortunately it seems logic and reasoning are on the way out.

  • tohellwithit

    ‘Lefties, liberals and warmists behave like a different species’

    I’m sure that kind of rhetoric has never caused any problems in the past!

  • R M

    “Warmists”, hahaha. Do you also write diatribes against “evolutionists”, “heliocentrists” and “round Earthers”?

    • Jen The Blue

      Why would he? They may be bonkers but the aren’t trying to destroy the economy and the landscape.

      • R M

        Evolutionists, heliocentrists and round Earthers “may be bonkers”?

        Oh dear Jen.

        • Jen The Blue

          RM, don’t even ask what I was thinking……..I may be bonkers!

    • Sue Smith

      Try to retain some perspective and self-respect, otherwise people will think you a “useful idiot”. You put your faith in false prophets; climate catastrophists who have a vested interest in you consuming their calamity-peddling cant.

      May I also recommend (via U-Tube) some past episodes of the excellent British program “Coast”. In that you will find that sea levels rose and fell by kilometers over certain periods of civilization. On second thoughts, don’t watch it because it will conflict with your ‘belief system’.

      • Harry Pond

        When did Australians start using ‘program’ as opposed to ‘programme’?

        • Sue Smith

          When they decided to Anglicize the word instead of its French derivation.

      • R M

        Sorry, why do you think that fact is controversial?

        • Sue Smith

          I accept your apology. Good night.

          • R M

            An astonishingly immature and irrational response which no doubt left you feeling nevertheless satisfied with yourself.

  • Jen The Blue

    Spot on as ever Mr Delingpole.

    • rtj1211

      You mean, you agree with him! Actually, I remain 100% confident that they are many things which outrage liberals, lefties and war mists which Mr Delingpole remains cold and unmoved about.

      • Jen The Blue

        I agree with everything he wrote. Nobody (sane) relishes war, but sometimes it is necessary.

        Yes, many things outrage lefties………usually things that shouldn’t, like shooting dead terrorists in the act, or imagined bogey men like AGW which helps their anti-west agenda.

  • The PrangWizard of England

    I’m aged 70, I have always lived in England. The winters don’t seem as cold now as say 50 years ago, but i don’t think the summers are any hotter.
    Not sure what that fits with.

    Does anyone care?

    • Jen The Blue

      Well the climate has never been static. It may be that what you say is true but that does not mean man has had anything to do with it.

      On the other hand memories are very unreliable. I “remember” many glorious winters with snow on the ground for weeks in my childhood. The actual weather data shows I seriously overestimate the amount of snow my home town had.

    • milford

      No they’re just going to steam-roller this climate change fraud out regardless of what anyone thinks, does or says, and they’re going to make a lot of money and have more control of our lives in the process.

    • rtj1211

      The sixties were much colder, the seventies quite mild, the eighties colder, the 90s and 00s very mild, now we have had a couple of colder ones again in the 2010s.

    • Sue Smith

      I live in Australia. Most of my relatives are farmers in our very dry and parched land. My aunt (born 1930) tells of playing cricket on the dry bed of one of our major river systems in the mid 1930’s. There are plenty of precedents for the climate experiences we now have.

      She has books of local history on her shelves. In one of these it tells the story of a baby born in that area in the very early 1920’s. My father was friendly with one of the children from that family. Anyway, the family lived in a corrugated iron shed on a farm remote from town. The last baby was born 2 months before a horrendous heat wave, which killed the child quickly. The father had to fashion a coffin out of wood and before he had completed it to bury the child the weather had turned cold enough for a fire to be lit to warm the family. This was during one of our summers.

      .

      • Johnnymcevoy

        Sorry, doesn’t fit the urban Lefty narrative.

        • Sue Smith

          Don’t apologize. I’m glad about not being a Lefty!

  • Albiro

    Yet we had a reporter on the ITN evening news tonight stating that Climate Change WAS responsible for the floods in Cumbria. Utterly irresponsible glory seeking journalism.

    • Sue Smith

      You are able to call it out but many other gulls are unable to do so. These are generally referred to as “useful idiots”.

  • marc biff

    That damned Eiffel Tower peace symbol bollox makes me want to puke every time i see it.

    • Sue Smith

      You must remember that there are many more gulls out there than intelligent people. Look what happened when Hitler came to power. There were opposition parties and people who feared absolutely the worst (and these were routinely rounded up and disposed of) but the vast majority formed a line of conformity and obedience which is very reminiscent of those consumers of today’s prevailing ideologies about climate ‘science’.

      I again ask; why was the term “global warming” discarded in favour of “climate change”?

      • R M

        It wasn’t. “Global warming” is still the common term used in science for the fact that the globe is warming. Which it is.

        “Climate change” refers to the location-specific changes of climate that result from the global warming.

        • Johnnymcevoy

          Oh I see.
          .
          So without ‘global warming’ there wouldn’t be any ‘location-specific changes of climate’. Or ‘weather’ as we call it.
          .
          Interesting.

          • R M

            No, climate is not the same thing as weather. I suggest you spend ten minutes researching those terms on Wikipedia before you embarrass yourself in public again.

  • yaosxx

    .

  • Adaadat

    No comments?

    • jeremy Morfey

      There were a number of comments posted at the time which appeared briefly and then got updated by your one solitary comment. When I tried to post something just now with a fairly withering attack on the stupidity of this article, It was suddenly pulled from someone monitoring my thoughts in GCHQ and vanished into the ether.

      I had just got as far as ranting about Soviet-style unsubtle propaganda supporting a man who was diverting funds away from public libraries and towards Chinese nuclear venture capitalists who add a few noughts to the bonuses of Burnham’s PFI crooks, and similar megabonus croneys who’ve sewn up railway contracts, and subsoil fractitioners who claim their risky technology doesn’t affect the well-being of Americans, when I remember Colorado catching fire a year or two ago.

      Actually the effects are indirect. It’s not the Carbon Dioxide that kills you – after all they put the stuff in fizzy drinks and it’s the sugar that makes you fat, not the fizz. No, what bothers me is mass migrations of people from incompatible cultures that are the consequences of even subtle changes in climate.

  • Passing By

    James, you can throw the healthists in with that lot. They DO believe that being young, slim and good-looking makes them a separate superior species.

Close