James Delingpole

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?

It’s a big question – and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I’m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Greens are crazy the world over…and evil

We all know how crazy our Greens are. We also know that Green policies actually kill people, like the victims of Australian bushfires killed by Green policies preventing back-burning in cooler months.

The election int he Uk is proving interesting, mainly for two reason…the crazies of the UKIP and the really cray types in the Green party.

James Delingpole explains:

Many years ago, when I was a young diarist working for the Daily Telegraph’s Peterborough column, my bosses dispatched me to cover the Green Party conference. This wasn’t because I was particularly anti-Green at the time. Rather it was because, of all Peterborough’s staffers, I was known to be the one least interested in politics and the political process, so it seemed entirely appropriate to send me to the big joke event in the conference season, rather than to one of the more serious events.

The only thing I remember about the event was being inveigled into some fringe activity in which I was forced to participate with various Green delegates in some kind of non-competitive group bonding exercise where we all had to roll about on the floor. Someone let out the most repellent fart. It smelt evil but everyone present politely conspired to pretend that everything was normal. I sense something similar going on right now in the collective efforts of the media chattering classes to present the Green Party as a viable, vibrant and credible force in UK politics in the approach to the General Election.

Classic Delingpole sledging.

He continues to explain why he thinks they are evil and wrong.

Apparently the Green Party’s membership has now overtaken UKIP’s. I’m quite prepared to believe this but I think it says more about the fiendish zealotry of the sort of people attracted to environmental causes than it does about the Green Party itself. It’s not as though the Green Party has suddenly gone and recruited a brilliant, inspirational go-ahead new leader – au contraire: see Nathalie Bennett, below – nor as though it has undergone some manner of dramatic, Clause 4 style, policy reinvention.

Nope. It’s just that of all the parties, the Greens are the one whose target market accords most closely with the kind of people who flock to sign Change.Org petitions and join Twitter mobbings and go out on street demos (or better still, attend week-long protest camps where they can smoke dope, get to use the yurt and possibly get to rub shoulders with Vivienne Westwood). These people are signers, joiners, astroturfers. As a percentage of the population they are quite small but in terms of exerting political pressure they punch far above their weight by being highly committed and – for a bunch of dope-smoking crusties – surprisingly well organised. This Green Party membership surge is just another part of that strategy. I don’t believe that it will translate into anything significant at the polls.

Read more »

James Delingpole on How the West will really respond to the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Sadly I think James Delingpole is right.

The West will cower and make excuses for Islamic terrorism and blame the victims.

The story so far: 12 people, including two policemen, have been murdered at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by two hooded men wielding AK47s. In 2011 the magazine was firebombed after running a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo’s most recent tweet, before the latest attack, was a cartoon featuring the leader of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Here’s what will happen next.

1. French authorities will urge the public not to jump to any unhelpful conclusions about the identity and motivation of the killers.

2. Politicians, police chiefs and mainstream media reports will urge restraint over what is clearly an inexplicable rogue incident which may have nothing whatsoever to do with the Religion of Peace.

3. Extensive – and largely fruitless – efforts will be made to find Muslim community leaders prepared to speak out against the incident, in the unlikely event that it proves that the killers may have had Islamist sympathies.

4. Liberal commentators will take pains to draw a distinction between Islamism and Islam, noting that the former is a malign perversion of the latter which (apparently) explicitly forbids the murder of innocents.   Read more »

James Delingpole on Smug Cars

James Delingpole hate Smart Cars (Smug Cars) and the Toyota Prius (Pious).

His column in the Daily Mail explains.

All right. I admit it, I’m prejudiced. I hate Smart cars.

I’ve loathed them ever since I glimpsed the first ones, crawling along the streets of London — from 0 to 60 in about half an hour — some time in the mid Noughties.

The Smart car was the brainchild of Nicolas Hayek, the man who invented Swatch watches. His idea was for a small, fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly car that would be easy to park in small, city spaces.

The Swatch company started working with car giants Daimler-Benz in 1995 and the first of the new cars was shown at the Frankfurt Motor Show in 1997.

The car’s makers boast that their vehicles — from exterior to seats, even the car battery — are 98 per cent recyclable, and each car is classified as an Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV).

They run on regular diesel or petrol, but are considered eco-friendly because they do around 70 miles to the gallon and their carbon emissions are low.

The truth, though, is that the Smart car — or Smug car, as it should really be known — masquerades as something modest, simple, practical and back-to-basics when, in fact, it’s just a poseur’s gimmick.

Driving a Smart car is the modern version of those horrid old back window stickers that used to say: ‘My other car is a Porsche.’

Except the difference is that if you have a Smart car, your other car probably is a Porsche.

Have a look at the price list and you’ll see what I mean.

These things aren’t manufactured for peanuts by some charming little yogurt-weaving collective in Wales.

They’re made in Germany by Daimler, with pricing to match.

Even the most basic, two-door model doesn’t leave you with much change out of £11,000. Read more »

“Depressing”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous”…nah just hunting

Cece-Gun-Susannah-Constantine_Instagram

James Delingpole comments on the current outrage over the above image by Susannah Constantine.

When is it wrong for a child to be taught discipline, responsibility and a love and understanding of the traditional ways of British country life?

When that lesson involves guns and game fowl, apparently.

Hence the story in today’s Daily Mail in which we are invited to be shocked by the fact that author and TV presenter Susannah Constantine has put up photographs on Instagram of her ten-year old daughter Cece beaming proudly, her face smeared in the blood of the first mallard duck she has shot and is pictured holding round its neck.

“Depressing”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous” claim the various animal rights campaign groups quoted in the article.

But for me – and, I would hope, the vast majority of Breitbart readers – the messages sent out by that charming photograph are the exact opposite of the ones that the animal rights fascists would like to impose on it.

How uplifting to see a ten-year old enjoying the outdoors rather than being hunched, as most of her contemporaries are so much of the time, over a computer!

How very responsible of this lucky girl’s wonderful parents to teach her such skills as fieldcraft, camouflage and markmanship, as well as imbuing her with an understanding of issues like conservation and the intimate relationship between meat and killing, and enabling her to operate on equal terms in a world traditionally dominated by men.

And how very safety-conscious to train her up from such a young age as to how to handle a deadly weapon responsibly.

Read more »

Sledge of the Day

James Delingpole is one of the best writers in the Anglosphere today.

His intolerance for the rubbish science of global warming is well known as is his intolerance towards socialists and nanny-statists.

He has a way with words and an intellect that demolishes the most battle hardened leftist and right now he has lined up Owen Jones, the current darling of the left-wing media in the UK.

This has got to be one of the best sledges ever:

All I will say is this. Next time you see Jones on TV – especially when he’s up against me – fluently rehearsing a selection of apparently well-researched factoids in support of his argument, I do hope you’ll take the trouble to check whether it’s his lips you can see moving, or whether it’s only his arse cheeks.

Which was delivered in his emphatic destruction of Owen Jones and his lies to the media.  Read more »

Anatomy of a Hamas Pallywood production

Pallywood and Hamas producer snapped in purple shirt

Pallywood and Hamas producer snapped in purple shirt

Remember the death of 4 Palestinian school kids on a beach and the outrage of the media, the world and the assorted leftist apologists for Hamas?

Of course you do…it was massive news at the time.

But it turns out that it might well have been staged by Hamas in one of their most successful Pallywood movies yet…and they killed the kids themselves.

James Delingpole explores the facts as ascertained by Thomas Wictor.

Here was the evidence – or so it seemed – that wanton Israeli aggression was leading to the needless deaths of innocent civilians, in this case four boys who had been playing football moments earlier and now lay in bloodied rags on the beach.

The story was reported by the Independent, the Huffington Post, Reuters, Channel 4 News, the Times, the Telegraph, NBC News, CNN, the Washington Post, and others, none of them questioning the premise that Israel was to blame for the deaths of the children.

And why should the media have doubted it? The entire sorry event  had, after all, been witnessed by numerous members of the international press corps, among them NBC reporter Ayman Mohyeldin, who tweeted that he had been playing football with the boys just minutes before the Israeli ordnance struck.

But did they actually see what they think they saw? Not according to a US-based weapons expert who has conducted a forensic analysis of what happened on the day, pieced together using Hamas propaganda footage, film from various international TV networks, and still photographs, and who has drawn a conclusion which could hardly be more different from the Hamas/mainstream media narrative.

His name is Thomas Wictor and if his theory is right then those four dead boys were not, after all the victims of Israeli missiles, but were murdered by Hamas in one of the most complex and ingenious “Pallywood” propaganda stunts ever staged.

If this sounds implausible – another wacko, 9/11-style conspiracy as some will no doubt suggest – then consider the evidence.  Read more »

Worried about Ebola? Don’t, the British Medical Journal says Climate Change is far worse

 

There are great many people worried about the impact of Ebola striking in the western world.

But they shouldn’t be worried because according to the British Medical Journal Ebola is nothing compared to Climate Change.

I’m not kidding, they really said that.

James Delingpole at Brietbart explains:

Climate change is even deadlier than ebola according to the editor of one of the world’s oldest and most distinguished medical journals.

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal; established 1840), claims in her latest editorial:

Deaths from Ebola infection, tragic and frightening though they are, will pale into insignificance when compared with the mayhem we can expect for our children and grandchildren if the world does nothing to check its carbon emissions. And action is needed now.

Not all BMJ readers will necessarily agree with this assessment, Godlee concedes:

When The BMJ started publishing articles on climate change, some readers told us to stick to our knitting (www.bmj.com/content/332/7554/0.7/rapid-responses). “What did this have to do with medicine?” they asked. And wasn’t climate change a myth, a result of natural climatic variation, nothing to do with human activity? There were surely more immediate challenges that The BMJ and its readers should be focusing on.    Read more »

The liberal-left’s extraordinary capacity for cognitive dissonance

James Delingpole examines “the liberal-left’s extraordinary capacity for cognitive dissonance” at Breitbart.

You may ask why is this relevant, but it most certainly is. We can learn a great deal by watching politics in other countries. Nothing Labour or the Greens are doing here is unique or groundbreaking, they simply follow trends overseas.

And so we can learn about the inherited cognitive dissonance of the leftwing.

On this week’s Radio Free Delingpole podcast I discuss with Peter Foster of Canada’s Financial Post an issue which has long puzzled me: the liberal-left’s extraordinary capacity for cognitive dissonance. Or, if you want to put it more bluntly, for epic self-delusion.

I’m thinking, for example, of Ed Miliband’s proposals to introduce rent controls, despite copious historical evidence that this measure always and inevitably has exactly the opposite effect of the one intended: creating more housing scarcity; hurting the poor.

I would include in the same category several of the measures introduced by the Cameron administration: the 0.7 per cent of GDP ring-fenced for foreign aid, despite all the evidence that the billions of dollars bombarded on Africa have had the unintended consequence of leaving some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa as poor (sometimes poorer) than they were 50 years ago; the minimum wage which – as any sane economist can tell you – is a tax on jobs and therefore a disincentive to employers to hire labour; the “green jobs” the Coalition’s drive for renewables has allegedly created, even though they are in fact nothing more than Potemkin jobs, entirely dependent on taxpayer subsidy, and therefore a grotesque misallocation of scare resources which would otherwise by directed towards real, lasting jobs in areas of the economy which create genuine value.

All this, as Thomas Sowell would put it, is Basic Economics. So why do so many politicians – from the Obama left to the Cameron faux-right – not get it? And why, for that matter, do all those voters who applaud their statist measures and urge still more government intervention not get it either?

This is the question asked by Foster in his superb new book Why We Bite The Invisible Hand: The Psychology of Anti-Capitalism (Pleasaunce Press). And he comes up with some fascinating answers.

My favourite is his suggestion – though he puts more politely than I do – that people on the liberal-left are insufficiently evolved; they are too much in thrall to their “monkey brains” – monkey brains which of course those of us on the right possess too but with one crucial difference: we’re clever enough and advanced enough to allow the logical part of our brains override them.

Read more »

10 examples of when it’s still OK for a white person to use the “N” word

James Delingpole explores the outrage over Jeremy Clarkson reciting a child’s rhyme that contained the dreaded ‘N-word’…because apparently we can’t be grown up enough to use the word nigger to describe what it is that Jeremey Clarkson actually said with offending people who are easily offended.

He has found 10 examples of the use of the word by white people that doesn’t mean that you are a car carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan or that mob of black shirt wearing pansies who in Christchurch.

1. In a quiz, when they’re asked the name of Guy Gibson’s dog in The Dambusters – or, indeed, X 3, the code phrase used by the Lancaster pilots to signal that the dams had been successfully breached.

2. When you’re quoting the name of an Agatha Christie thriller.

3. If someone asks you what NWA stands for.

4. It’s your Latin class and you’re saying the word for “black”.

5. You’re starring as a nasty white person in a liberal-guilt-porn movie such as Twelve Years A Guardian Reader and you are required to make your character more realistic and unpleasant.

6. You’re recalling a great Clint Eastwood scene from Escape From Alcatraz.

7. You’re talking about the funniest moment in the entire history of South Park, when Randy appears on Wheel Of Fortune and the clue is “People who annoy you” – and the word is “N-GGERS”

8. You have become so immersed in rap culture that you think you are black and start referring affectionately even to your white friends as “Homes”, “bro”, “blud”, or “mah niggah”.

9. You are an outspoken controversialist who loathes the stultifying effects of political correctness and wants to test its boundaries.

10. You are in a kitchen with friends, discussing the Jeremy Clarkson “N-word” “scandal”, trying to remember exactly what decade it was that the “N-word” in Eeny Meeny Minie Mo went off-limits.

Read more »