James Delingpole

The slow death of environmentalism

Where 25 years ago the environment was considered everyone’s domain, it has since been hijacked by the left

7 May 2016

9:00 AM

7 May 2016

9:00 AM

Would you describe yourself as an ‘environmentalist’? I would, mainly to annoy greenies, but also because it’s true. If your definition of an environmentalist is someone who loves immersing himself in the natural world, makes a study of its ways and cares deeply about its future, I’m at least as much of one as David Attenborough.

But I can see why many fellow nature lovers might balk at the term, especially now that it has become so grievously politicised. That would explain the recent Gallup poll — it was taken in the US but I suspect it applies to Britain too — showing how dramatically this label has plunged in popularity. In 1991 the majority of Americans self-identified as environmentalists — 78 per cent of them. Now, it’s just 42 per cent: less than half.

Why has the term so fallen out of favour? Well there’s perhaps a clue in the fact that the decline has been far more precipitous among Republicans (down to 27 per cent) than among Democrats (down to 56 per cent). In other words, where 25 years ago the environment was considered everyone’s domain, it has since been hijacked by the left and turned into yet another partisan issue.

If you believe the greenies, the blame for this lies with an intransigent right so imprisoned by ideology that it stubbornly denies ‘the science’. Actually, though, I’d say it has more to do with the militant left exploiting environmentalism as a fashionable cloak for its ongoing war on liberty, free markets and small government.

Note the tactics. Like the Viet Minh or the Taleban, the environmental movement has become hugely skilled in the art of asymmetric warfare. The number of true believers is much smaller than you’d think — but they’ve managed in recent years to punch massively above their weight by infiltrating all the key positions of influence and by terrorising those who disagree with them.


Challenge the ‘consensus’ — whether you’re a scientist like Willie Soon or even a cuddly TV presenter like David Bellamy or Johnny Ball — and these people will stop at nothing to try to destroy your career. This is the tactic that the Marxist urban revolutionary Saul Alinsky advised in his manifesto Rules for Radicals: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it and polarise it.’

Which goes some way towards explaining, I think, why in private people tend to be more vocally sceptical about stuff like global warming or the pointlessness of recycling or carbon taxes etc. than they are in public. No one wants to be caught speaking out of turn by the green Stasi, for fear of the consequences for their reputation or their job prospects.

Look at what happened to our own Matt Ridley when he applied for the chairmanship of the Natural History Museum. A distinguished, Oxford-educated scientist and a brilliant, internationally respected communicator, Ridley would have been perfect for the job. But as Charles Moore reported in his Notes the other week, Ridley’s mild climate scepticism ruled him out of contention.

When you write about this sort of thing, you run the risk of being tarred by the green lobby as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Again, this is very much part of the environmentalist modus operandi. Activists like Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute and Richard Black of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit are paid handsomely to pour ridicule on ‘deniers’, make noisy complaints to the press regulator Ipso and concoct letters like the one recently sent to the editor of the Times warning that by giving voice to sceptics he was turning his paper into a ‘laughing stock’.

The letter (sent privately, but leaked in the Guardian) was signed by no fewer than 13 members of the House of Lords, several of them scientists, who had held distinguished offices ranging from Astronomer Royal and president of the Royal Society to chairman of the Financial Services Authority. Any casual observer might naturally assume that such pillars of the establishment must have a point.

It’s only if you’re familiar with the territory that you realise how often the same names — Lords May, Rees, Stern and Deben; Sir Crispin Tickell; Sir Paul Nurse, et al — recur with tiresome regularity. Probably in their fields they were once rather good. But since then prestige has gone to their heads and they’ve turned into professional political activists brandishing a spurious environmental authority which is all too persuasive to people who don’t know better.

This is precisely the strategy that one of the progenitors of cultural Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, was advocating when he talked about the ‘long march through the institutions’. In order to dominate the political argument, he realised, you don’t necessarily need to be in government. You just need to make sure you’ve nobbled all the influential posts in academe, the media, the arts, big business and so on.

Not all these figures are on the left. Lord Deben — still best known for the incident when, as John Selwyn Gummer, he publicly fed his young daughter a beefburger to show us we weren’t all going to die of BSE — no doubt thinks of himself as a Conservative.

Nor are they all necessarily political. Some are in it for the money (remember, this is now an annual $1.5 trillion industry, so there’s plenty of trough room for the snouts); some — luvvies especially — are in it because all their mates are; some because they’ve taken the environmentalists at their word and genuinely, sincerely believe that this is about saving the planet.

But regardless of their motivation, the result is always the same: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, less freedom. Ordinary people can smell a rat, even if they’re not quite sure where the body is or why it’s stinking. They just know something’s rotten in the state of environmentalism; they don’t want to be tainted by it, and very sensible they are too.

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
  • bufo75

    “nobbled all the influential posts in academe, the media, the arts, big business”.
    This applies particularly to the Church of England, where Mother Gaia has replaced God, with due obeisance to Marx and Allah.

    • Tekknocrates

      The Green Man and neo-paganisnm is much older than your church.

  • mikewaller

    The only reason environmentalism might die is that as life getting harder and harder, as it will, folks could become increasingly willing to sacrifice their posterity in the interest of their standard of living in the here-and-now. This would, of course, be a great wickedness and amongst those who are making this just a shade more likely is a very small demon, otherwise of great inconsequentiality, called James Delingpole.

  • Jack_H

    As the science is looking increasingly shaky they now attack individuals as the arguments forwarded by skeptics are harder to refute.The vast green industry spurred by this nonsense is indeed immense.As patrick Moore pointed out,use of hydrocarbons is set to increase,he offered a bet on the continued rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.Which of course no one will take up.The $1.5 trillion on “renewables’is not going to have any impact on CO2 levels…..just make a few individuals very wealthy at the expense of the vast majority…………now there’s a surprise!

    • drumroll please

      No one cares about CO2.
      It’s all about saving money.
      How many more times?

  • Pablo (Paul) Murphy

    “Hijacked, the Left, Marxists, greenies, the Guardian, Attenborough, “science”, “evidence” (italicised, of course), extremism, luvvies, ….. denial, denial, denial.

    The usual keywords, exaggeration and distortion with no shortage of wish fulfilment, and you’ve another sensational Dilingpole expose of a tiny group of scientists and researchers apparent conspiracy to defraud the public.

    • Jack_H

      Here you go:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

      It’s rather simple,so much political capital has been invested in ‘Climate Change’it is now next to impossible to challenge despite the mountain of evidence that now contradicts what our politicians are saying.

      The recent Paris Climate Treaty fiasco,you will recall that the media claimed this was a success……….in fact it was nothing of the sort,the only agreement was that the 3 largest emitters of CO2,USA,China and India would continue to INCREASE their production of CO2 by their use of fossil fuels…………..If the leaders of all these major emitters do not believe in climate change what does that tell you?

  • Craig Austin

    These groups want to reduce our population down to 100 million – 1 billion, that means they are going to have to get rid of a lot of people, maybe people realize that they are targeted for extinction by these groups. They talk about saving the world for your grandchildren, but they don’t want you to have children, much less grandchildren. You cannot eliminate 85-99% of the human population by “saving lives”, somebody has to die. I suggest SJW’s, followed by enviornmentalists, after they are gone the world will be more pleasant.

    • Tamerlane

      You can be sure they already have children.

  • balls

    That grass in that picture embodies the anaphylactic reaction of the modern city dweller to real nature.
    Of course they hate it, we like to dream nicely about it though as it makes us feel better.

    Environmentalism hasn’t been hijacked by anyone. It’s a money spinner and money, dear deniers, makes the world go round.

  • Jojje 3000

    The broad failure of traditional socialist and communist idéas has sent the PC Big-government leftist crowd out in the wild. They now try to hijack any moneymaking ideology, and environmentalism is perfect for advocating new and higher taxes.

    • drumroll please

      incomprehensible gibberish

      • Jojje 3000

        Some truth that doesn’t fit you Mr Drumroll ?

  • Chris Hobson

    Environmentalism applies to everything (energy, transport, food, nature etc) thats why the control freaks love it so.

    • drumroll please

      Meaningless piffle.
      Control is management you dolt.

  • Tamerlane

    The saddest aspect is that genuine environmentalism (i.e. you build that car park you destroy that nature reserve) has been devalued and undermined by these idiotic political environmentalists from NGOs and academia milking the gravy train for their own ends. When the last Rhino dies I hope they dump the carcass at the doorstep of the likes of Greenpeace or indeed Oxfam (because they’re all riding the same gravy train) and make them pay for it – with their homes and pensions if need be.

    • post_x_it

      Exactly, and one of the best examples for this is the aggressive promotion of diesel cars by the environmental lobby. Anyone with an ounce of common sense (or genuine concern for the environment) could see that this has a disastrous effect on air pollution, but all this was trumped by the obsession with lower CO2 emissions (which turned out to be fraudulent anyway).

  • What a sad article, and what sad comments.

    • cerberus

      What’s truly sad is politicians throwing a trillion of taxpayers’ dosh straight down the green lavatory pan never to be seen again. All the while the weather goes about doing what it’s been doing for the past 4.7 billion years and Mother Nature steadfastly refuses to jump to attention to the eco-wacko’s fantasies.

  • Dannz

    Spot on again James.

  • Margaret Hardman

    Is this the moment to remind James’s fawning readers that Lord Ridley famously chaired Northern Rock to financial disaster, having his rosy cheeks saved by Gordon Brown nationalising it for God’s sake. Thank goodness a world renowned museum decided he was not a safe pair of hands, in spite of his ideological denial and propagation of the pimple of evidence that climate change is not the result of human activities.

    • MartinWW

      Firstly, Northern Rock has nothing to do with environmentalism. Secondly, there is a huge literature of real observational science that shows that human contribution to climate change is slight and not threatening. There is also a great deal of scientifically suspect computer modelling leading papers whose subjective conclusions are characterised by words like ‘could’ ‘might’, ‘perhaps’. These we should be rightly sceptical of.

      • Margaret Hardman

        True, Northern Rock does have nothing to do with environmentalism, but it is relevant to whether Matt Ridley is a suitable person to run anything.
        As for your assertions about the huge literature of real observational science… it would have been nice to have given a single reference. Again on the subject of computer models, references would be nice. I am looking forward to the report of the GWPF on homogenisation of temperature series, something that was promised a year ago and about which Lord Lawson and colleagues is entirely reticent.
        As for the human contribution being slight and not threatening – move to Miami. Real estate there might be very cheap soon.

        • Tom M

          Are you serious about computer models? Bearing in mind that not one computer model anywhere predicted the continuing rise in CO2 and the temperature not following the trend as they predicted I’m surprised you need to mention references. It would be a start I suppose if some of the software these models are running on were open to scutiny by peers. But they won’t allow that will they?
          Computer models so far have predicted the climate where the limits of the possible outcomes are governed by the size of the paper upon which they are printed and always upwards. When these predictions become more like what you would expect with margins of error in the normal range for scientific experiments and they match what actually happens I’ll believe them.

          • Margaret Hardman

            Yes, I am serious. The computer models are doing fine, the denier predictions are well off but no one but Sou@hottwhopper remembers just how awful they are. I believe the current temperatures are near the top end of the predictions but you’d better not think about that because that would mean the projections are running cold and the world is running hot. I trust that unless a computer model doesn’t get it exactly right you won’t believe them.

            But leaving the models to one side, even RSS and UAH have the world getting hotter and when you or someone else cries foul, didn’t the failed GOP candidate Ted Cruz claim the satellite series were the best data available because, with a cherry pick, you could find a zero trend in warming.

            Anyone got any news on the GWPF report? They need to get on with it, having fewer members and less in donations they could disappear up their own fundament before it gets finished. #freethetol300

          • Tom M

            Margaret slow down. The computer models aren’t doing all right. If they were performing the function they claim they would have predicted what was going to happen. Right? They didn’t. None of them did. No ifs ands or buts they are wrong.
            It clearly doesn’t fit your point of view so you try to turn the debate telling us that the deniers are wrong too. That’s not the claim under discussion.
            In saying that computer models are wrong I’m not claiming anything alse about global warming at all. That’s a whole other argument.

        • Fudsdad

          What is happening in Miami? Is the sea rising just there? Strange.

        • Mr B J Mann

          But the problem with references are that the MMGW “scientists” own emails leaked in Climategate showed that MMGW “scientists aren’t suitable persons to run anything scientific!

    • Mr B J Mann

      There have been numerous investigations and reports on Change Mongers accused of dodgy science.

      By their peers, their universities, their institutions, their governments.

      And according to the MMGW fanatics everyone exonerated the MMGW “scientists”, and confirmed that MMGW was supposedly a scientific fact.

      But what they all ACTUALLY say is something along the lines of: on the evidence they looked at they couldn’t see any conclusive proof that the MMGW “scientists” were deliberately trying to defraud the scientific establishment and the general public.

      So not exactly a ringing endorsement!

      And they all go on to excuse any errors the MMGW “scientists” made by pointing out that climate “science” is actually high level statistics and the MMGW “scientists” simply didn’t have the statistical skills to do their science.

      In other words the MMGW “scientists” weren’t deliberately conning us:

      They just got their “science” all wrong because they are clueless!!!

      • phil

        I recommend you watch “Tim Yeo discussing Global warming with Lutyens on Youtube” at a select committee hearing.
        How Yeo ever got to be chairman of anything is beyond me. His lack of grasp on the subject of global warming was only surpassed by his refusal to stop digging a hole after he lost sight of the committee.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I think you meant with Lindzen?

      • Margaret Hardman

        I think you’d take not guilty on face value if you were accused of something you didn’t do. If they got the science wrong, it wouldn’t take long for that to be found out. The experiments to show the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is pretty easy (first done 150 years ago), and measuring the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn’t too hard either. That the deniers just haven’t managed to puncture the science, in spite of the gatherings of the great, good and emeritus organised by Heartland (oh, that Unabomber billboard…), suggests that said accumulation of neutrons and synapses are not going to do so anytime soon. I see that John Christy’s latest effort is full of scientific holes, h/t Tamino@Open Mind, and has more punnets of cherries than the fruit counter in Waitrose. I wonder who is really clueless.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Yup.

          And you’d have thunk you’d have accepted not guilty of murder, “only” guilty of manslaughter, at face value.

          But no!

          As for:

          “The experiments to show the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is pretty easy (first done 150 years ago)”

          Where?

          Venus?

          A planet in some other galaxy?!

          Some achievement for 150 years ago!

          Funny how they managed to mess with a full scale planet and they STILL haven’t a clue how weather and climate actually work on this one and STILL can’t build models which reflect them accurately.

          Yes, they did something 150 years ago which didn’t worry anyone for over a century until Thatcher picked up on a pseudoscience myth of some West Coast hippies that had “more punnets of cherries than the fruit counter in Waitrose” and used it to scare non scientists in the war against miners and for nuclear power.

          Go Maggie!!!

          • Margaret Hardman

            You really don’t have a clue, do you? And I really mean that. Try some online research for yourself and you might want to start here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/wea.386/asset/386_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=A60F76F61973305C323B6A3A2E1213A2.f02t01?v=1&t=inxeyjhm&s=53ca648d76ba5fac3307e19f5b28ed8c7c74af36

            William Tindall did the necessary experiments in 1859, here on Earth, that demonstrated the greenhouse effect of CO2. That you barked on about Venus demonstrates a planet sized hole in your knowledge and understanding which it is not too late to fill. Unless, of course (and I cannot rule this out) that you think a conspiracy has been running on this matter since 1859 and that Tindall was in on it. When you can come back with something worthy of contempt or better, Mr Mann, I will give it my time. Until then, go read a book on the subject, written by an expert, and not an interpreter of interpretations.

            Warnings about the effects on burning fossil fuels and the rise in global temperatures goes back to 1896 http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm

            You really do need to stop listening to the WUWT self help group and do some reading for yourself. The truth is actually much more interesting than the cartoon given you by the article above (Lord help us that you get your science from an interpreter of interpretations, somehow who was skewered by a Nobel laureate and who then whined about how stupid he was made to look, and I can assure you that James Delingpole really did look very stupid in that Horizon programme, and his fellow travellers look just as stupid).

            Can’t remember which person unable to use Google said no one had debunked ThenGreat Global Warming Swindle documentary but I think that level of ill informed comment sums up the denier arguments. Repeating old, hoary and long rebutted arguments, cherry picking graphs and data to fit the “argument”, throwing ad Homs around about being left wing, claiming conspiracy, not understanding anything about adjustment and not wanting to either, and we haven’t heard anything about consensus (not that we need to but the FUD brigade really can’t stand the fact that scientist – no scare quotes – actually do find broad agreement on the fact that human activities have raised global temperatures).

            Miami isn’t the only Eastern seaboard city in the USA that currently floods at high tide on a regular basis more frequently than in the past. It was nice to see that realist GOP mayors in Florida demand action rather than sitting on comfy senate committees, demanding emails on fishing expeditions from government scientific agencies. Our grandchildren will find it hard to forgive the fact that we could read a simple graph but chose childishly to argue about it instead.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really should spend a little bit more time actually reading what I write before wasting so much time “replying” to things I’ve never said and you have no reason to think apply.

            And where you have read the odd word a bit of thought would help preventing you blindly firing off cut and paste inanities and shooting yourself in the foot again.

            As you appear to have read one word before “replying” this time let me help you out:

            “Where?

            “A planet in THIS galaxy?

            “A planet in some other galaxy?!

            “Some achievement for 150 years ago!”

            That YOU barked on about Venus demonstrates a planet sized hole in YOUR knowledge and understanding which it IS too late to fill.

            As you are barking!

          • Margaret Hardman

            Nope, I think you mentioned Venus first. Nope, I’m not barking. That I replied with evidence and you replied with a stream of nonsense is indicative. Do you have any evidence? Do you actually have anything besides a sneer? I await your fully referenced response.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, I mentioned it as a random planet name.

            You responded with some mystic cultish doctrine you’d been programmed with.

            Clearly it is some kind kind trigger word for you!

            So clearly you are barking!

            And in denial!!!

          • Margaret Hardman

            Mr Mann, I realise that reality is not your strong suit but I can only assume from your rant that you deny the work done by physicists in the nineteenth century that established per adventure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Having myself done simple experiments to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I would suggest you Google how to do those experiments and do them yourself.
            I am done with your ignorance and inability.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So educate me.

            But don’t explain how you covered every single interrelationship in the climate system.

            Start with something simple.

            And take it one stage at a time.

            Like the way every warming period started with your greenhouse gas levels going down.

            And the way every cooling period started with your greenhouse gas levels going up.

            Over to you.

            And if you can’t remember the answer maybe you could rerun your simple experiments to remind you how the world works!

            In reality!!!

          • Margaret Hardman

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

            There’s your homework for tonight. You might like to look at more from that site. It is very informative and properly sourced. The people who actually study these things realise that the world is complex and that multiple factors are at play. We know what caused the Ice Ages, for example. That you seem not to know these things is not my fault. I understand the need to keep it simple but I also realise that the average denier is not going to change their mind because of what I, or often, anyone else says.
            Before you moan that I didn’t answer your questions, I give links that do. Before you moan that SkepticalScience.com is not a reliable source, don’t bother. Just because Anthony Watts doesn’t like it and tries to keep his minions from going there, try a peak and make your own mind up. If you want to be a true skeptic, that’s what you have to do.
            And if reading isn’t your thing, go on YouTube and search Potholer54 or Climate Denial Crock Of The Week. Both very entertaining and informative. Oh, and evidence based.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you can’t answer the simple question with the simple explanation you tried to give the impression you had.

            But at least you’re no longer in denial about it being complex.

            Next step in your deprogramming is for you to understand what all those enquiries that said it was too complex for the MMGW “scientists” to cope with and that was why they were wrong were saying.

          • Margaret Hardman

            Too complex for you, clearly, but certainly not too complex for those that really do study the subject. I really am surprised that, armed with so little evidence, you keep plugging away more in hope than expectation, bringing up the usual denier arguments, or usually bringing nothing at all. I don’t know if you have noticed this but it is a common characteristic of all deniers. They are full of bluster and talk of conspiracy, yet they have nothing to show for it, other than a handful of quotations trawled out of 5000 emails that all the inquiries exonerated the scientists. I can’t be bothered to educate you, since I guess you didn’t bother to look at any of the links I have provided, and since your response to being told that the greenhouse nature of carbon dioxide was demonstrated in 1859 (that’s the year that The Origin Of Species was published, as was A Tale Of Two Cities, Big Ben chimed for the first time, the first oil well in the USA was sunk, Svante Arrhenius – who first pointed out that global warming would happen – was born, and much more) was to ignore it and make an oh-so-witty comment, it is hardly worth my while anyway. I suspect you were one of those spotty, sure of themselves kids who sat at the back of class and made spit balls rather than trying to understand physics. You don’t regret it because you don’t realise how much you don’t understand. Never mind. I am confident that global warming is happening. As someone said, you know when the planet is warming when the warmest year on record is the one your in. It is happening. It is the result of many factors but CO2 is responsible for c110% of the warming since 1950 (the are some cooling factors too, like aerosols) and that sea levels are rising, global sea ice decreasing, seas becoming more acidic… I could go on but you won’t bother reading it. I shall not bother responding so feel free to have the last word. You can have it, I don’t want it. When you’ve got it, I’ll be gone. T won’t matter what you’re saying when the damage is already done.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Keep plugging away bringing up the usual “denier” argument!

            Why not just go the whole hog and “argue” that I can’t be right because I eat Jewish baybees for breakfast?!

            It only needs one piece of evidence to have been found that the “scientists” are scamming to show they are scammers.

            You seem to be arguing that you can’t be expected to doubt them unless every line of every email they ever said was a confession?!

            By the way, how many hundredths of a degree hotter than the next half dozen hottest years is the hottest year on record you’re in (after all the “corrections” of inaccurate records – upwards if recent, downwards if not)?!

            And could you please educate me on where I can find an acidic sea?!

    • seangrainger

      As one of Mr D’s fawning readers may I remind you [itals] that Deben / Gummer was only famous for stuffing a hamburger in his poor hapless daughter’s mouth to “inform” us plebs CJD didn’t exist. And this when the Tory competition was David Mellor s******g his girlfriend while wearing his Chelsea … er … strip. Ah those were the days eh?

      On ye olde climate change thingy no one has ever come up with a rebuttal of The Great Climate Change Swindle.

      [I had not read to the bottom. Hamburger there of course]

      • Margaret Hardman

        On ye olde climate change thingy no one has ever come up with a rebuttal of The Great Climate Change Swindle.

        Professor Google tells me that these links do just that:
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rXVq_Y-PU
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media
        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
        http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
        https://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/loooking-for-the-material-that-debunks-and-discriedits-the-great-global-warming-swindle/

        So Sean, I think you really didn’t look (and the last one is a collection of links doing more rebutting).

        And while we’re about it, which version of the film do you want rebutting, since it was re-edited to “correct” some of the bigger fluff ups.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Maggie, you’re like someone trying to get people to look at evidence Nixon was innocent after Watergate!

          You’ve missed the boat!!

          We already KNOW for a FACT tha the MMGW “scientists” knew their models didn’t work from THEIR OWN notes in the program code leaked in Climategate.

          We already KNOW for a FACT tha the MMGW “scientists” were conspiring to prevent the truth being revealed about their scams from their own emails leaked in Climategate.

          • Margaret Hardman

            So glad you are so certain. It provides a little comfort blanket. Meanwhile, in the real world, no matter what you think, science and scientists just get on with the job of showing every day what you are SO CERTAIN isn’t true. You have any actual, verifiable, reliable evidence for that, other than a vague it can’t be right because someone with a peerage tells me it isn’t. Truly, truly wretched effort, Mr Mann.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oops, you appear to have forgotten to read my post before “replying” to it with a standard response.

          • Margaret Hardman

            That’s all right. Your post was standard denier fare anyway.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’ll never know as you’d never read it.

            But you reply was standard brainwashed cult member!

          • Margaret Hardman

            We already KNOW that all the inquiries cleared those scientists, in spite of your sneering comments.

            I did read your comment. It really wasn’t worth the effort.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you haven’t read the comment as you would by now know that all the enquiries only cleared them of being (on the evidence looked at probably) not guilty of deliberately conning the scientific community and the public at large:

            Because they were clueless about the science and had got it wrong!

            Whereas their own emails and program code notes make it clear they knew their “science” didn’t work and that they were colluding to hide the fact.

            So it doesn’t make any difference how many “scientific” papers you reference (never mind ones from commercial sites selling carbon free power!) or “scientists you count:

            You are clearly as deluded as they want the rest of us to be!!!

  • seangrainger

    As one of Mr D’s fawning readers may I remind you [itals] that Deben / Gummer was only famous for stuffing a hamburger in his poor hapless daughter’s mouth to “inform” us plebs CJD didn’t exist. And this when the Tory competition was David Mellor s******g his girlfriend while wearing his Chelsea … er … strip. Ah those were the days eh?
    On ye olde climate change thingy no one has ever come up with a rebuttal of The Great Climate Change Swindle.
    [I had not read to the bottom. Hamburger there of course]

  • Mark Bailey

    The biggest problem for both sides of the climate change debate is the long time frame over which climate change occurs. There are no laboratory experiments that accurately reproduce the observed effects. The pro man made climate change group bases its projections and predictions on computer models which are admitted by both sides to be incomplete and require certain assumptions to be made to simplify the models.
    For any science, the measure of its rigor is its ability to predict. So far as I am aware, there is no models into which you can put all the available weather data to the year 1996, run the model, and get anything approaching what we are seeing in 2016 or the trends that we have seen since 1996. At least twice in each year, I have read stories in scientific publications of new discoveries concerning climate science and/or discoveries of (supposed) inaccuracies in previously accepted data. The plain fact is we do NOT have a sufficient understanding of this most complex energy system we call climate to justify the very costly (in money and in lives) changes in behavior we are being asked to undertake. We would be much better off to invest in more research and to end the secrecy in their data, their methods and their models practiced by some of the climate researchers. Weather data gathered by governments is not private and access to it should not be denied on the basis of agreement or disagreement with the prevailing viewpoint. Moreover, if the science (of the climate) is settled, as has been said, then it is the only science known to man to be so settled, a highly unlikely scenario.

    • Mr B J Mann

      If it’s so settled i’m sure they won’t mind us scrapping all MMGW research grants and diverting the money into building a big scaffold to hold up the sky!

  • Jojje 3000

    The government has to stop the sky from falling down on our heads, I suggest a £10 million grant.

  • Sean L

    Partly because of the Thatcherite identification of conservatism with economics the long march through the institutions went unopposed. In his latest novel, Submission, set in France a few years hence, Michel Houllebecq depicts a Muslim faction with a charismatic leader winning a decisive share of the vote in a general election. But when it comes to actually forming a government, the Muslims have no interest in the economy. They have one implacable demand, control of education. That’s conservatism for you: thinking of future generations. Whereas the English Conservatives took precisely the opposite approach. And it’s not the militant left that opposes the operation of the market, so much as big capital whose interests are continuous with big government. It’s not the militant left that’s at war with “free markets and small government”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, since in reality there are only big governments sponsored by international capital to effect regulations to hamper their smaller competitors, effectively thwarting the operation of the market. The EU, which in effect is such a collusion, is hardly a function of the militant left. You seem to be mistaking the rhetoric for the reality, perhaps in the service of your own rhetoric which requires these simplistic but false oppositions. The militant left, insofar as they oppose the EU and globalisation, are defending free markets; but insofar as they’re Green and against border controls are in league with big government and international capital. As to environmentalism, if you ride with the hounds consider yourself a de facto practical environmentalist. Tally ho!

  • johnhenry

    Polluters bad. Incinerators good. Recyling bad. Logging good. Plastics bad. Furs good. Pesticides bad. GMFs good.

    Exceptions prove the rule.

  • salt_peter

    The tactic of boring from within has been with us since before the second world war. It was driven by the USSR under Stalin, and later Khrushchev. They were seeking to disconnect the British people from their history, heritage, and culture through subversion especially of the education system.

    That is why there are now so many irrational believers in MMGW due to CO2, for example.

    Another example: the C of E made it easy for the subversives. Its weak failure to assert the teaching of its doctrine in schools inevitably resulted in its eventual disappearance in a decade or so when the present congregation dies out or subsides into drooling senescence.

    Their religious rock is no longer there (or barely there) for the English to turn to should they wish. It has been stolen from them, and consequently the people are ready for heathen conversion.

    Stalin intended that the resultant ignorant underclass would then be ripe for a ‘glorious revolution’ to build ‘Jerusalem’ in Britain allowing a takeover by Moscow. Useful idiots in the Labour movement provided the vehicle and cover.

    When the USSR collapsed, its covert operations briefly ran out of control and became visible for a short time until the vacuum was filled by the alleged environmentalists and their ilk.

    At a guess, we would need to close down the present teacher training system and fire out of hand around 15000 teachers and educationalists just to regain control of our children’s education, let alone clear out the poison from the rest of our institutions.

    Regarding MMGW, when every anti-west pressure group climbed on the CO2 band-wagon, which they saw as attacking the west at its roots through shutting down the energy supply on which it depends, things became unstable under the relentless propaganda.

    The result has been so effective that even despite there never being any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected he Earth’s climate, not to mention that none of the warming industry’s predictions have come true – its hypothesis was falsified and abandoned over a decade ago – nevertheless people still passionately believe the hoax.

    The Asian portion of the world, including Russia, saw through the hoax and ignored it, exploiting the foolishness of western politicians to their own benefit.

    We are now in a hole of our own making. The first step to salvation is to escape from the clutches of the EU; the second is to remove from power all those anti-British politicians and establishment figures who personally believed (as opposed to pretending for toadying purposes) that EU membership was a good thing.

    Then we need to sort out the UN to stop it from ever pulling another stunt like this ever again,

    • johnhenry

      I appreciate your cogent, well-written comment, especially about firing “15,000 teachers and educationalists”. But that’s never going to happen unless we have a deep, long term depression. As I see it, that’s the only way to clear out the dross, not just in our schools, but in all departments of government, quangos and media. Short of war (to be dreaded more than anything) severe economic hardship is the only way left for us to “get religion” – as Calvin Coolidge suggested to a delegation of dairy farmers who approached him while relaxing in his rocking chair on the White House portico to ask what they were supposed to do upon his announced elimination of their public subsidies.

      Our ‘Come to Jesus’ moment will occur when we’re confronted by the spectre of want. Poverty has a way of focussing the mind on what’s important instead of on frivolities. I might end up suffering more than others; but I accept that, if that’s what’s needed to get back on track.

      • Leon Wolfeson

        Ah, the purge of scienists and teachers. Of those not of your ideology from government and media – for your police state, with your One True Party and a controlled media, right.

        That you see inflicting poverty on the masses as a weapon for your Satanism… as you talk about people whose concern is food, and how you want to gull them. You’ll “suffer” by taking what they have left, I bet.

        • Toast well done

          Someone’s done too much crack and been allowed near a keyboard.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Great. And? Some people do all sorts of things, your utterly disconnected comments…

        • Sargon the bone crusher

          ACCEPT THE NEEDLE WOLFSON!!!!!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Take your crack elsewhere.

      • salt_peter

        On reading your post, it occurred to me that the trigger that could make the scales fall from the eyes may be the collapse of the global warming hoax.

        It appears that the Atlantic sea surface has started cooling, while we also head into a la nina, which could give us a chilly winter

        Also, if the likes of Svensmark are correct then once the oceans cool we could also be in for a chilly 21st century.

        The global temperature will drop while atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise. There will be less food because agriculture will be adversely affected.

        At some point it will become impossible to carry on pretending that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is affecting the climate, at which point the balloon will go up in a big way. Egg on faces all round, espcially in the UN.

        People will have been hoaxed out of billions and they are going to want it back.

        Just one example – motor manufacturers have needlessly invested huge sums developing funny cars to chase the rainbow of mitigating climate change. They are going to want their money back.

        Then there are all these wind turbines ..

  • Jacobi

    The quicker Environmentalism and the associated and very expensive Environmental Industry disappears and is re-place by an objective approach aimed at a balanced assessment and control of the still very large ability of the earth to provide for us into the indefinite future, the better.

    Certainly here in the UK the countryside and the air has never been better, although it is still rather cold, and windy and wet and thoroughly unpleasant, such as today.

    What we need is another + 2/3 degrees C, such as we had in post-Roman Britain times when everybody was perfectly happy – with the weather I mean.

    Yes, yes, I know there were one or two other problems, but nothing to do with the weather!

  • JonBW

    Environmentalism is the natural territory of conservatives; we care about our heritage and what we pass on to our children; we are sceptical about change for its own sake; and we recognise that some things matter much more than money.

    It is a shame that Environmentalism has been hijacked by the Left; but it is equally tragic that conservatism has been hijacked by neo-liberals.

  • congreve

    I shouldn’t worry about ‘isms’, purges and neo-Bolsheviks. The Ice Age cometh and this sucker’s going down. Not for golden fancies do iron truths make room.

  • FauxScienceSlayer

    There is NO phantom, back radiation warming force, as proven by Thermodynamics and Radiation Physics.

    There us a rigged, three sided FAKE debate between the Alarmist BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists

    and the Learned NO Warmists see Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny” at FauxScienceSlayer.

  • Freddythreepwood

    Of course you are right. It’s just a pity our Conservative politicians, including our own dear prime minister, are so lily-livered about this. But then, when has a politician byepassed an excuse to raise taxes?

  • JSC

    I think we must be careful to separate the environmentalists and conservationists (people who love and want to protect the environment in reasonable and pragmatic ways), from the eco-mentalists who see the existence of the human race as utterly evil in essence. Where the environmentalists and conservationists are happy to open wildlife parks to the public, happy with zoo conservation programs, all so everyone can witness the various beauties of nature; the eco-mentalists obsess over ways they could exterminate the human race – “for the benefit of the planet”, apparently. In no short order they want to ban pesticides, meat, farming, fishing, pets, plastics, paper, money, economic growth, having children, mobile phone masts, nuclear energy, wind farms, fossil fuels, genetic engineering, chemical engineering, mining, manufacturing etc, etc, etc. And all because somewhere they fear a dormouse might be inconvenienced from collecting berries from it’s usual bush and might, woe of woes, die. Leaving aside the obvious contradiction of the millions of dormice brutally killed by natural predators every day, leaving aside the new ecological systems arising from the dead dormouse, it’s clear these extremist nut cases have utterly infected and tainted the whole political arena. Let us look at the Green party, a party primarily made up of deluded, unemployable women with a fancy for homeopathy, crystal healing and wicca and their associated would-be-mate male mangina hanger ons, who were at the last election tempting us with “zero economic growth”, the abolition of money and other abject lunacy. If these idiots succeed in not getting challenged or called to account, then the major parties are also going to start pumping out this toss to compete for the ecomentalist vote.

    This has to stop. The eco-mentalists must be forced to justify their claims and acknowledge and explain the consequences of the actions they so foolishly advise.

    • Ivan Ewan

      G. K. Chesterton wrote of “the suicide of mankind” as the ultimate end to which anarchists strive. At the time, I’m sure he sounded a little bit crazy. Today, it’s an obvious truth.

    • Sean L

      Yeah probably more about their being ******gable than unemployable…

Close