The Climate Alarmists Have Lost the Debate: It’s Time We Stopped Indulging Their Poisonous Fantasy

Not in danger–never really were.
The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously.
Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having “sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence.” Nigel Lawson has called it “not science but mumbo jumbo”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC’s panel as “evasive and inaccurate” in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph;Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we’ve been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between “low confidence” to “exceptionally unlikely;” and this latest from the Mighty Booker.
And there’s plenty more where that came from.
Now, of course, I fully appreciate how the climate alarmists are going to respond to these criticisms: same way they always do – with a barrage of lies, ad homs, cover-ups, rank-closings, blustering threats, straw men, and delusion-bubble conferences like the one they’ve just staged at the Royal Society in which one warmist pseudo-scientist after another mounts the podium to reassure his amen corner that everything’s going just fine and that those evil denialists couldn’t be more wrong.
Well, if that’s how they want to play it – fighting to the bitter end for their lost cause like Werewolves in Northern Europe in ’45 or those fanatical Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands – I guess that’s their problem.
But what I really don’t think we should be doing at this stage in the game is allowing it to be our problem too. As I argued here the other week, there is more than enough solid evidence now to demonstrate to any neutral party prepared to cast half an eye over it that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It’s over. And while I don’t expect the alarmists to admit this any time soon, I do think the rest of us should stop indulging them in their poisonous fantasy.
I’m thinking, for example, of this line from the Spectator’s otherwise superb, accurate and fair editorial summarising the state of play on climate:
Global warming is still a monumental challenge….
Is it? More of a “monumental” challenge than global cooling? And the evidence for that statement can be found where exactly? Please – I’d love to see it. Where’s the data that proves the modest 0.8 degrees C warming in the last 150 years has done more harm than good?
It may seem unduly picky to quibble over just seven errant words from an otherwise immaculate 800 word editorial. But it’s precisely intellectually lazy concessions like this that are serving only to prolong a propaganda war that really should have ended long ago.
I feel the same way when I read one of those on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other think pieces from someone on the “sceptical” side of the argument or an editorial in a newspaper trying to position itself as the voice of reasonable authority on the climate issue. You know the sort I mean: where, in order to make his case seem more balanced and sympathetic the author concedes at the beginning that there are faults and extremists on both sides of the argument and that it’s time we all met in the middle and found a sensible solution. (I call this the Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy)
This is absurd, dishonest, inaccurate and counterproductive. It’s as if, after a long, long game of cat and mouse between a few maverick, out-on-a-limb private investigators and an enormous Mafia cartel, an outside arbitrator steps in and says: “Well there’s fault on both sides. You Mafia people have been really quite naughty with your multi-billion dollar crime spree. But you private investigators, you deserve a rap on the knuckles too because some of that language you’ve been using to describe the Mafia cartel is really quite offensive and hurtful. Why, you’ve actually been calling them “thieving criminals.”
“But they are thieving criminals,” the investigators protest. “And do you have any idea what it has cost us pursuing this case? Do you realise how hard the cartel worked to vilify us, marginalise us, make us seem like crazed extremists? These people have stolen billions, they’ve lied, they’ve cheated, they’re responsible for numerous deaths, and you’re, what, you’re going to buy into the specious argument of their bullshitting consigliere Roberto “Mad Dog” Ward that they deserve special favours because their tender feelings have been hurt with unkind language?”
It’s time we took the gloves off in this fight – not to escalate it but to stop it being prolonged with this ludicrous diplomatic game where we have to pretend that there’s fault on both sides – not because it’s in any way true, but because the climate scam is so vast and all-encompassing that there are just too many people in positions of power or authority who need to be indulged by being allowed to save face.
Why?
Professor Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University, toldthe Independent: “His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”
And Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the report, said: “I find it very worrying that this person is charged with adapting [Britain] to climate change. I do think it is a good idea for whoever is planning for adaptation to have a realistic understanding of what the science is saying.”
This rightly taxed the patience of even the scrupulously non-combative Bishop Hill:
One can’t help but think that politicians’ understanding of the science might be helped if scientists, including Professor Allen, had tried to write a clear explanation of it rather than trying to obfuscate any difficulty that might distract from the message of doom.
Quite. What Paterson said about the current state of climate change is both demonstrably true and wholly unexceptionable:
“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries”, he said.
“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas.
If shyster professors with cushy sinecures in state-funded seats of academe wish to counter such reasonable statements of the glaringly obvious – statements, furthermore, which are actually supported by the body of the new IPCC report (see above) – then the onus is on them to do so using verifiable facts rather than vague, emotive smears.
To return to my favourite field of analogy – World War II – the situation we’re in now is analogous to the dog days of 1945 when the allied advance was held up by small pockets of fanatical resistance. The Allies had a choice: either painstakingly take each village at the cost of numerous infantry or simply stand back and give those villages an ultimatum – you have an hour to surrender and if you don’t we’re going to obliterate you with our artillery.
We have to take a stand on this issue. One side is right; one side is quite simply wrong and deserves to be humiliated and crushingly defeated. And the sooner – for all those of us who believe in truth, decency and liberty – the better.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate
  2. Who funds the Climate Alarmists?
  3. Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology
  4. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one

 

Farewell, Knights of Delingpole – and Thank You, Trolls

The dark forces of statism

Scare quotes? He has to be talking about “scientists”…

A few years ago a friend who wishes to remain nameless suggested that it was about time I started writing a blog.

“Why would I want to do that?” I said.

“Because it’s the future and you’d be good at it,” he said.

So I gave it a go and I’ve been here ever since. But not for any longer I’m afraid. Today is the sad day when I must bid you all farewell. I have been appointed Chief Sustainability Consultant at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, working directly to one of my all-time-heroes Ed Davey, with a juicy, taxpayer-funded salary, a ring-fenced pension and a bio-fuel-powered Aston-Martin just like the Prince of Wales’s.

No, not really, about the second bit. Just the first bit: I’m off to pastures new.

What am I going to miss most? Well, you lot, obviously. Especially the ones who call yourselves the Knights of Delingpole. But even also, up to a point, my menagerie of house trolls.

Yes, I know trolls can be pretty annoying sometimes – incredibly stupid and wrong, too, it goes without saying. Without them, though, I’m not sure the comments section – which, after all, is far more important than any of the rubbish I write on top – would have been nearly so lively, inspirational, or indeed long.

It’s a bit like the wind farm appeal hearing I attended today. (Couldn’t write a farewell blog without shoehorning in wind turbines, could I?). When I stood up to give my speech what really fired me up wasn’t the righteousness of my cause. Rather, it was pure bloody irritation at the various forms of slimesome lowlife I’d just heard on the other side of the room trying to justify why it makes perfect sense to despoil one of the loveliest corners of rural England with a noisy, ugly, taxpayer-subsidised, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifix.

So, thank you, sort of, trolls.

Thanks, of course, to the Telegraph for the privilege of having been part of such a first-rate blogs team.

And thank you most of all to those of you who have supported me through thick and thin. Thanks for your technical expertise and advice (it prevented anyone ever noticing that I’m an English graduate and know NOTHING about science apart from, maybe, how to grow copper sulphate crystals); thanks for your jokes, links and irrelevant asides; thanks for your friendship and loyalty and courage in the face of sometimes, near insuperable odds, against the dark forces of statism, political correctness, and green-left-liberal lunacy. You are like brothers to me: all of you; apart from the ones who are more like sisters.

Related posts:

  1. We need to talk about wind farms…
  2. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story
  3. Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot
  4. If this is Britain’s energy policy, we’re toast

 

Benefits Street Is Unrepresentative. Really?

January 15, 2014

Benefits Street, Channel 4’s hit, fly on the wall documentary about a Birmingham street full of welfare claimants, is a gross distortion of reality.

We know this because a group of charity heads has written to the Telegraph to say so. They claim to speak for more than 100 charities and community groups, all of which are “calling on Channel 4, as a public service broadcaster, to review how this damaging and grossly unbalanced programme came to be shown.”

Apparently the series focuses on “an unrepresentative minority”, “reinforcing harmful stereotypes where the most extreme examples are presented as the norm.”

Gosh. I wonder how they know. For example, when I checked the annual accounts of one of the concerned charities, I couldn’t help noticing that its top paid employee – presumably the chief executive who signed the letter –

gets between £100,000 and £110,000 (plus benefits). This is not remotely abnormal in the lavishly pampered charities sector; I expect the other signatories of the letter do similarly well. So at a guess, none of these people lives in roads anywhere like the one featured by Channel 4 – James Turner Street in Birmingham. They can just flit in and out of poor people’s lives, like Mrs Jellybys, feeling virtuous about the good they do (often courtesy of the taxpayer who gets stung, willy nilly, for so much charity funding these days) – and terribly echt too, what with some of the, ahem, earthy types they meet – while never actually having to engage with the real consequences of our bloated, demeaning and destructive welfare state.

I suppose their ideal programme might have shown someone like Radek Stakhanofski, the heroic Polish tractor driver who gets up before dawn, ploughs a thousand acres, and sends the money to his apple cheeked children in Wroclaw, none of them on UK benefits, of course. And the jolly Roma family in their delightful painted caravans who scour the fleamarket every Friday to look for suspected stolen goods which they spend the rest of the week trying to return to their rightful owners. And Doreen, Brummie born and bred, who has never worked a day in her life because of her terrible, crippling and genuine back pain but will never claim benefits – “more than moi loife is worth, arkid, I’m tellin yow” – because her pride just won’t permit it.

Problem is, these people don’t actually exist – and even if they did, they’d hardly be representative. Not in a street where, we learn,

90 per cent of residents living in the 137-house street claim one or more benefits ranging from £500-£900 a month in free hand-outs.

Of course, I can see why these charitable bods are concerned about Benefits Street. They admit it in their letter:

Such portrayals skew the public debate about benefits and cause distress for many of the millions of people who need this support.

That’s lefty speak for: “If working people ever get to discover where their tax money really ends up, at a time when they find it tough enough to feed their own families, let alone those of workshy scroungers, then that’ll be the end of the line for our welfare state gravy train.”

(Oh – and that phrase “millions of people”. Millions. Scary, no?)

Related posts:

  1. How the green lobby smears its enemies
  2. Lefties have got away with feeling superior for too long — let the fightback begin
  3. Broken Britain
  4. Back in the Delingpole fold

 

How the Blair Government Paid for the Subversion of Our State Broadcaster

BBC: Paid bias

BBC newsroom (Photo: BBC)

So now we know yet another reason why the BBC is so biased in its reporting on climate change: because in 2006 the Labour government effectively paid it to be so. It was a £67,000 grant from the Department for International Development (DFID) which paid for the notorious, secret high-level seminar at which the BBC was persuaded to abandon all pretence at neutrality on the global warming issue. I expect the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin just can’t wait to get his teeth into this major scandal.

Oh no, wait, I forgot: Harrabin was the seminar’s organiser. (Don’t worry, Rog. I promise not to remind anyone. We Oxbridge English Literature graduates must stick together, eh?)

Anyway, I notice one or two feathers have been ruffled by the Mail On Sunday’s suggestion that many of these revelations are new. Some of us were on to this stuff at least as far back as November 2012 (see eg this Spectator article and this Telegraph blogpost), while, of course, the real credit ought to go to the following:

Maurizio Morabito – who (despite heroic attempts by the BBC to keep it secret) managed to unearth the list of attendees at the seminar, many of them environmental activists.

Roger Tallbloke.

Andrew Orlowski. (Sorry for forgetting to include you earlier, mate. My bad. You were a star team member too and there’s really no excuse given that I used this excellent report you wrote at the time in one of my blogs….)

Christopher Booker, whose report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – The BBC And Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal – put the scandal in its proper context.

Bishop Hill – who has provided the most thorough account of the affair in his pamphlet the Propaganda Bureau.

and, above all, to Tony Newbery, the heroic North Wales pensioner, whose indefatigable pursuit of the story and protracted struggle with the Information Tribunal brought all this stuff into the open.

I call that a brilliant team effort by 28Gate United and I for one am absolutely delighted by the contribution of our latest signing, top Mail On Sunday striker David Rose. This, after all, is a story which has been quite shamefully ignored by much of our mainstream media. Perhaps this will now change and, if we’re lucky, we might even see one or two heads rolling.