James Delingpole

Calls to jail climate sceptics for daring to challenge the science

The armists are showing their true colours and chancing their arm with totalitarianism, all in order to silence people’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

James Delingpole at Breitbart.com explains the latest call to jail climate sceptics:

Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.

Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”. (H/T Bishop Hill)

The Conversation – no relation of Breitbart’s blogging chatroom – is a website promoting articles by academics and funded by nineteen of Britain’s leading universities, as well as several government agencies, including the Higher Education Funding Council For England (HEFCE) and the Higher Education Funding Council For Wales (HEFCW) and Research Council UK.

Its motto is “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” – both qualities which are mysteriously absent from Torcello’s essay, titled “Is Misinformation About The Climate Criminally Negligent?”

Torcello notes that after the earthquake that devastated l’Aquila, Italy in 2009, six Italian seismologists were jailed for six years for having failed properly to communicate the nature of the threat to the public. The same fate should befall climate denialists, he suggests, because they stand in the way of the “meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”  Read more »

Looks like the bears will be ok…and us too

The-Hard-Proof-That-Global-Warming-Is-A-Scam-4

James Delingpole, who is now the face of Breitbart London writes about a new study about global warming by 40 ex-NASA scientists that shows that even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

In contrast to the alarmist claims, the planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.  Read more »

Daniel Hannan nicely sums up MSM v Blogs

Daniel Hannan explores and explains the sometimes unhappy relationship between traditional media and blogs…from his own blog, that is ironically part of The Telegraph.

Back in the pioneering days, blogs were seen as a challenge to the established media. And, in one sense, they were. When Guido scalped his first minister, Peter Hain, in 2008, something changed, though the newspapers were slow to notice. When, the following year, he aimed his tomahawk at Derek Draper and Damien McBride, old-style pundits were still laboriously explaining to their readers what these blog thinggies were. By the time Tim Yeo became Guido’s latest victim, no one needed to ask any more.

When a dozen dead tree newspapers determined the agenda, the media’s chief power lay in not reporting a story – not through conspiracy, but from shared assumptions about what constituted news. Take the leak of the “hide the decline” emails from climatologists at the University of East Anglia in late 2009. At first, the astonishing trove was reported only by bloggers. It wasn’t that environment correspondents were meeting behind drawn blinds and vowing to repress the discovery; it was that, being uncomplicated believers in the AGW orthodoxy, they couldn’t see why the emails were a story. Only when repeatedly needled by online commentators were they were eventually forced to report perhaps the biggest event in its field of the century.

The key moment came when the story was picked up by James Delingpole, whose post attracted 1.6 million hits. Tellingly, that post appeared here, on Telegraph Blogs. Blogs were now part of the established media. In the early days, some had believed that the MSM would be displaced, others that the old brands would conscript the upstarts. In fact, something more interesting happened: the distinction broke down.   Read more »

James Delingpole on feeding giraffe to lions

We wrote the other day about all the sooks crying a river of tears because some lions in Copenhagen Zoo got a tasty feed of Marius the giraffe.

James Delingpole writes about the issue in The Telegraph.

One of the giraffes at Copenhagen Zoo has been killed, publicly dissected then fed to the lions. Public outrage has been immense. “How could they do such a cruel and terrible thing?” people are asking on Twitter and elsewhere. “And what kind of a sick, weird parent would you have to be to take your children to watch a giraffe being cut up with a surgeon’s knife?”

Let me have a stab at answering the second question first, because I’m one of those sick, weird parents. If I’d been anywhere near Denmark that day, I too would have eagerly dragged my kids along to the zoo’s operating theatre to witness the ghoulish but fascinating Inside Nature’s Giants-style spectacle.

Why? Well, partly for my entertainment and education, but mainly for the sake of my children. I know we all love to idealise our offspring as sensitive, bunny-hugging little moppets who wouldn’t hurt a flea. But the truth is that there are few things kids enjoy more than a nice, juicy carcase with its guts hanging out. Dead birds are good; dead badgers are better; a dead giraffe is all but unbeatable.

You first tend to notice this trait on family walks. Desperately, you’ll try to keep your reluctant toddler going by showing it lots of fascinating things. Sheep or tractors may do the job, just about. But not nearly as well, say, as a dead rabbit with its belly distended with putrefaction and flies crawling over its empty eye sockets. It’s your child’s introduction to a concept we all have to grapple with in the end: what Damien Hirst once called “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living”.

This, no doubt, is one of the reasons for the enduring popularity of Roald Dahl. Dahl’s brilliant insight is that children, au fond, are horrid little sickos who like nothing better than stories about giants who steal you from your bed in the night to murder you, and enormous crocodiles that gobble you all up. His is a natural world red in tooth and claw: Fantastic Mr Fox really does slaughter chickens – because he’s a fox – and when he gets his tail shot off you know, much as you might wish it otherwise, that it is never ever going to grow back.  Read more »

Time to start trimming the lobby groups income

I see this morning that the health fundies are making their big anti-sugar push again with the help of media. Veteran trougher Boyd Swinburn is front and centre and so is Robyn Toomath.

Coincidentally James Delingpole takes aim at such lobby groups in his Telegraph column.

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”. Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

One of the curses of modern life is the plethora of “charitable” lobbying groups demanding that the government take more regulatory action in areas where most of us believe the state has no business interfering.

Almost every day you read in the papers that some apparently grassroots movement, supposedly speaking for all of us, thinks more should be done to stop us drinking, smoking, eating sugar or salt, make us less sexist, force us to spend more on foreign aid or environmental issues. But if that wasn’t annoying enough, here’s the worst thing of all: we’re paying for these unrepresentative, mostly left-leaning lobby groups with our taxes.  Read more »

First tobacco, then booze, then sugar, the control freaks are coming

I have covered this extensively and commented, and even given speeches about the troughers worldwide who are moving from attacking the tobacco industry to booze and now onto sugar and fat.

They are using the same tactics as they have used against Big Tobacco…and at one recent speech I gave when I mentioned “Big Sugar” ther was some sniggering…then lo and behold we saw the troughers use that term just a few weeks later. I bet those sniggering had an “oh fuck!” moment.

James Delingpole looks at this phenomenon as well.

In this week’s Spectator I have a rant about all those pressure groups you see quoted in all the papers pretty much every day. Some are small, obscure and marginal – Bright Blue, the think tank for Lib Dems who want to play at being Tories, comes to mind – while some sound superficially respectable – the British Medical Association, say. What they all have in common is that they tend, on the whole, to lend far, far too much credibility to a hardcore of professional activists whose tedious and unhelpful opinions we would most of us do better to ignore completely.  Read more »

Delingpole on the liberal-left’s weasel words

James Delingpole does not tolerate fools and especially detests the liberal-left, especially when they hijack the language.

Not so long ago – and indeed for the first five hundred and fifty odd years of its recorded usage – a subsidy was something quite clearly understood by everyone to mean a cash incentive.

Here, for example, is the online Merriam-Webster definition:

Money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

Here is the one from my Chambers dictionary:

Aid in the form of money; a grant of public money in aid of some enterprise, industry etc; or to support or keep down the price of a commodity, or from one state to another.

This is certainly the sense in which I have always understood the word. I would suspect the same is true for most of you. So I would argue that there is something slippery and disingenuous about that claim above that there is no “internationally agreed definition of what constitutes energy subsidy.” Yes there is. Everyone – every normal, reasonably well-educated, English-speaking person, at any rate – would know instantly what constitutes “subsidy”, regardless of whether or not the word “energy” is put in front of it. It means a cash incentive.

What it definitely doesn’t mean is a tax reduction. Why doesn’t it mean this? Well, let’s examine the logic for a moment. Suppose I were to mug you in the street and steal, say, £100 from you. But then, in a fit of generosity, I decided to hand you back a tenner so you could get a cab home. Could that tenner be reasonably described as a “gift” or a “donation”? Well, yes, I suppose at an enormous stretch, it could just about. “Dono” means “I give” in Latin, so, yes, when I give you back that “tenner” it could be construed as a gift or a donation.

But only by someone lacking in any kind of moral responsibility, or intellectual consistency, or understanding of sense, context and nuance. No sensitive user of the English language would ever employ the word “gift” or “donation” in such a perverted way.   Read more »

David Cameron gets his beans

The other day I blogged about David Cameron and his decision to get rid of all the “green crap”.

James Delingpole excoriates David Cameron for his own green crap.

So how exactly does Cameron’s alleged desire to cut the green crap square with his government’s actual policies? Not very well, as David Rose has damningly revealed in The Spectator.

Here’s a taste:

While they bicker about trimming a few tens of pounds here or there, Parliament has been dealing with the closing stages of the Energy Bill. This, working in concert with its predecessor, the 2008 Climate Change Act, will inflict the biggest fuel bill increases of all. The 2008 measure enforces a legally binding carbon emission target for 2020. But because it’s much harder to cut emissions from transport and heating than electricity generation, this will mean trebling the proportion of power produced by renewables from its current 11 per cent over just six years.

The cost of this swift and radical transformation dwarfs marginal items such as the eco levy. According to the ‘levy control framework’ established by the Energy Bill, it means more than tripling renewable subsidies to £7.6 billion by the end of this decade. The total renewable subsidy which UK consumers will have paid via higher energy bills for the ten years to 2020 will be an almighty £46 billion.   Read more »

Guest Post – Kevin Hearle – NZ’s Kyoto commitment (a farce) and here is why.

iraqi

The New Zealand Kyoto commitment as measured by the Government fell to Zero in April of 2013 the actual commitment in Millions of Units was 29.1M Units but because the value of these Units is linked to the price in Euros of a CER on the European Exchange and that fell to €0.01 effectively zero our units are deemed to be worth less than a CER (though why a unit of carbon is worth less in NZ than it is in Europe is beyond me) this made our 29.1 million credit worth nothing.

Let’s consider that we can actually measure our commitment with any certainty for the moment.

The price of carbon has fallen from around € 12.00 in 2008 to effectively zero €0.01 in April 2013. This fall is due to the manipulation of the market by the EU in allowing the market to be flooded with CER’s  and now by the complete loss of credibility of the UN IPCC and the Catastrophic Anthropogenic  Global Warming  scenario painted by that organisation.  The IPCC’s 5th Assessment report has been bagged by scientists and the press alike.  James Delingpole’s article in the Telegraph  headlined “The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy” sums it up.

Delingpole quotes  IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen as saying  the IPCC has  “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 it 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 these last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now  graded by scientists to somewhere between “low confidence” to “exceptionally unlikely;” .   Read more »

Could this possibly get any better? UN declares wind farms breach human rights

It really couldn’t get any better than this…the UN declaring that wind farms are a breach of human rights.

I can’t wait for Russel Norman to mount a tirade against the government for deploying wind farms when they so comprehensively breach human rights…that was his argument against the GCSB Bill, so if he is consistent he will surely now campaign against wind power.

Plans for future wind farms in Britain could be in jeopardy after a United Nations legal tribunal ruled that the UK Government acted illegally by denying the public decision-making powers over their approval and the “necessary information” over their benefits or adverse effects.

The new ruling, agreed by a United Nations committee in Geneva, calls into question the legal validity of any further planning consent for all future wind-farm developments based on current policy, both onshore and offshore.

The United Nations Economic Commission Europe has declared that the UK flouted Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention, which requires full and effective public participation on all environmental issues and demands that citizens are given the right to participate in the process.  Read more »