Bishop Hill Delingpole bashes the IPCC
Oct 6, 2013 Climate: IPCC James Delingpole has struck a well-aimed blow at the Fifth Assessment Report, providing a very useful summary of the issues to date and summarising thus:
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.
Also in the Telegraph, Booker's comment is quite closely related to the discussion on Clive James, with the case being made that scientists are a pressure group:
In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence.
All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group, because this has taken in no one more damagingly than all those credulous politicians who use the IPCC’s bogus prestige to justify landing us with some of the most disastrously misconceived policies the world has ever seen.
Reader Comments (39)
James has taken the gloves off and scored a knockout in round one.
The judges are checking their score cards whilst his opponent lies
comatose on the canvas.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to land that knock-out blow whilst the referee is on the side of the "climate scientists" and their lies and propaganda. There are only a few influential politicians (such as Owen Paterson) on the side of sanity and their influence is minimal at the moment. The BBC etc will do everything they can to prevent the truth getting out there.
I suggest we call this new Lysenkoism, Mannism.
They are of course absolutely right.
The IPCC computer models have failed.
Their 'projections' have failed to materialise.
Climate sensitivity is in the bin.
Hot spot? Nowhere.
That should be AGW falsified right there.
They cannot link 'extreme' weather to CO2 in ANY way whatsoever.
Oceans are not rising at any sort of increased rate, nor is there even the slightest sniff of evidence for 'the ocean ate my warming'. That theory is face-saving at its most naked.
Temperatures - the BIG one, have not risen in lock-step with 'carbon' emissions, nor their predictions.
Uber fail.
Arctic ice may be down on the 30 year mean but Antarctic ice is up, and global sea ice is close enough to average be neither here nor there, and certainly not indicative of imminent disaster.
What else is there for them? no, seriously. What? There is nothing. They really do have nothing left but fear of fear itself.
What is there left for alarmism?
Given their two decades of vile opprobrium heaped upon anyone who even challenged the now quite clearly falsified theory, they owe the world the Mother of all Apologies. It will be delicious to watch.
I see on unthreaded that our resident troll doesn't like reference being made to Christopher Booker's article.
Seems to me that Dellers is not in the same mould as our host. The enemy is the enemy and has to be destroyed at all cost. Carthago delenda est. As someone once said. And it seems to me Bish that it follows from this that all shades of the Chucklebrothers are the enemy. I would have to say I am more in the Dellers' camp than the BH camp. These people have done untold harm to the citizens of the world. I am not for forgiving them in a hurry.
Stalwart effort from both James Delingpole and Christopher Booker; however, of no great value unless our politicians read their work. This is the problem, the law makers will only read and accept the sanitised views of the IPCC. Perhaps an open letter to them all: pointing out, for example, the downgrading of virtually all extreme weather and allied events, within the report. Noting how Obama and Gore are still preaching the exact opposite: and asking "who do you believe?"
Delingpole is doing exactly what must be done. He has a bully pulpit, his column. He should use that column, as he has in this case, to state the plain truth about the Alarmist crowd and its claims. If that plain truth were in the media every day then both the Alarmist crowd and the citizenry would respond to it, but in very different ways.
I think Booker's article should be dynamite. Fixing the science retrospectively to suit the spin!!! We have two very expensive enquiries (on the Press and Iraq) which pale into significance with this allegation. Where is the responsive media - concentrating on tits and bums etc,
pesadia: "James has taken the gloves off and scored a knockout in round one."
Sadly, that simply isn't true. The British Establishment ((most politicians, most public servants - at national and local level - the main-stream media, academia, public institutions, charities, the churches, etc ... i.e. the policy makers and most opinion influencers) is still standing and looking robust and confident. Largely, it regards James D with either tolerant amusement or contempt. There are many more rounds ahead. Claiming that you've won, as James has done, when you plainly haven't, makes you appear rather foolish.
@Robin Guenier
Delingpole declares the scientific debate won. He is right, the proof is AR5 itself. What remains is the political debate. He acknowledges that struggle to be far from 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."
There is no foolishness in that.
UK scientists and establishment hangers-on who have pushed the politically biased IPCC line without question need to plan their exit strategies pretty fast.
As we approach the next election expensive energy, or lack of it, will become a big issue. Politicians of all 3 EU parties will need to explain to the public how and why we have arrived at such high bills for a dimming supply.
A belated national debate will ensue and all kinds of stones will be turned over.
This time it won't just be a blog-battle or a BBC propaganda science programme to reinforce 'belief'.
Establishment scientists and their political mouthpieces will be called on to explain to the public at large in open debate why they made our politicians take the actions they did and enforce the suicidal Climate Act.
That is how it will end. The scientific community will carry the blame as the politicians were merely responding to the IPCC reports they, er, paid for with our money and specified through the EU/UN.
It may have seemed trendy and 'right-on' at the time, but no longer.
It's not going to be pretty.
Dolphinlegs (Oct 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM): as I have implored before, please do not sully the name of one of this country’s most enjoyable acts. The Chuckle Brothers are witty and warm, and fully appreciative of their fans and audience, wholly unlike many of those in the AGWist camp.
RR
Schuckburgers?
I'm sure that I don't need to say this to the authors and readers of this blog, but the only way to stop this wickedness is to abolish the IPCC. The effort of people who have the will and the authority should concentrate their efforts in doing just that. It's like Medusa. You can't defeat it by cutting off each of its heads, you have to kill the beast.
It is not only that some climate scientists are "addicted" to this particular cash cow, so are some politicians whose agenda revolves around the same pitches. Until new propaganda ideas hit the political scene, it does not matter what the "science" says or doesn't say. The cow is being milked for all it's worth and that's that. Meanwhile, of course, governments continue to get deeper and deeper into debt chasing the impossible realization of climate campaign goals. It's an issue of absence of ideas. And still today, catastrophic climate aberrations have more political worth than any other alternative, for there are no effective alternatives, for ideologies died a while back.
I agree with Robin. There's no knockout and no dynamite and no win here.
So Dellers and Booker have written articles attacking climate alarmism and the IPCC. Like they do every week.
I think it may be the first time I've got a mention in the Telegraph though!
Delingpole declares the scientific debate won, the trouble is that issue as been dead for a long time .
Unfortunately some AGW sceptics still do not get why just because the data supporters them why that is not just enough to say so .
Because it was never about the science , you only have to look at what the chief AGW 'scientists' call their work 'the cause ' and read their own words , especially those on sceptics , to see how far science as been left behind by even these so called scientists . You only have to look back in history to see how often you could rise the question 'how could they possible believe that ' So 'facts be dammed ' the war is in no why won until the politics has been shorted out.
We really must try writing direct and en masse to the various Govt Scientific Officers. They are the guiltiest of all.
We have to recognise that those who are ideologically motivated to drive us back into the dark ages don't necessarily need to win the argument in the long term in order to achieve their goal. Many of them have known all along that the scientific support for their policy proposals was absent.
This is why, with no supporting scientific evidence, they have given such emphasis to a supposed urgency. It was the short-term that was important for them. Political inertia would (and will) carry things forward after that. Thank god for FOIA, who gave us Climategate. We'd be in so much worse a place today if it hadn't been for the brakes they applied in the lead up to COP15.
Now evidence-based science is beginning to reassert itself, and the junk science of alarmism is losing its momentum and giving way. But it is still a long time before the battle for reason can be won. A new apocalyptic religion has been born. Religions defy reason, and they lead to wars - Greenpeace is already overtly redefining itself as a terror organisation. We still have hard times ahead.
Delingpole is 100% correct.
Simon Hopkinson
There is no ideology from politicians, only hard cash.
Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU'semissions trading scheme.
The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.
The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
Full story
http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro
Jenny Murray asked Christine Rice (opera singer) about her early career as a scientist researching “global warming.”
Rice replied:
I was amazed really by the inadequacy of what we had, because we’re talking about climate change which is over tens of thousands of years as opposed to the twenty years of data that we had. So in a way we were putting out a lot of ideas and not really having concrete scientific research to support it, and I suppose at that point I did lose a little bit of my spark, thinking well I could propose an idea and I could probably draft a thesis that would support it and yet I wouldn’t really convince myself necessarily.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100097342/christine-rice-your-new-favourite-mezzo-soprano/
In other words, it's a silly scam.
Hansenkoism
Amatør1: I don't for a moment think Delingpole is foolish. But our ruling Establishment does - and shouting that you've won doesn't help. Those who are determined to overturn current UK climate policy have a long, long way to go and I fear that comments such as "What remains is the political debate" suggest the challenge is considerably smaller than it really is. It isn't - and James D's "small pockets of fanatical resistance" in 1945 analogy is wholly inappropriate.
The climatology has failed but the money is still flowing, until litigation of some sort makes the case for recompense it will not be over.
Enjoy brilliant satire: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/the-climate-brick-road-song-surrender-your-neurology-to-the-church-of-climatology/
eSmiff wrote:
Jenny Murray asked Christine Rice (opera singer) about her early career as a scientist researching “global warming.”
From the answer she gave Christine Rice sounds like the honest, open-mined type of climate scientist that the world needs. I don't know who her MP is but let's hope that he/she asks Christine Rice for advice about the strength, or lack of it, of the evidence underpinning current policies on tackling climate change.
It's the Fabian society and eugenics all over again.
Further to my comments above, I urge people to read this transcription of BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth programme on 1st Oct. (Grateful thanks BTW to Alex Cull and Geoff Chambers for their work in producing this.)
Do Tony Grayling, Tom Heap, Emily Shuckborough, Julia Slingo and Mark Walport sound as if they represent "small pockets of fanatical resistance"? I suggest not - indeed, on the contrary, I think they would regard Delingpole and Booker as the fanatical resisters.
All things considered, you can't fight dogma with facts.
The UN, the EU, the government, the IPCC, the BBC, and many other institutions are not really interested in the science - they have an agenda to adhere to, come what may, and their agenda is the line they'll always take.
It doesn't matter a jot if the truth prevails that their assertions are false, if the party line is AGW, and they say they can change things by declaring this or that edict, impose this or that tax, and control the way of life of millions, then that's what they'll do.
I don't think you can easily convince a body whose mind is already made up, to change it merely by proving to them that they are wrong. The blinkers stay on, and they merely sing "Lalalala" all the louder.
I wish I knew the answer - the Australians were clearly so fed up with Gillard and their labour party and the lies, they voted with their feet. There will, no doubt, still be a strong backlash.
Dear Robin Guenier, one big advantage on our side of the debate - and why I am so happy to be on it - is because of our scrupulous regard for accuracy. So perhaps in keeping with this tradition you could point to the bit in my piece where I claim to have "won", thus apparently making myself, in your ex cathedra judgement, look "foolish."
The claim seems especially odd given that the key metaphor in the piece concerned World War II and the especially vicious fighting that took place in 1945. If you ever met someone who served in North West Europe in 1945 - the first part, which is what my piece referred to - they'd quickly disabuse you of the idea that the war was over at that stage. On the contrary, much of the very nastiest fighting took place in the war's final months. So you see, I wasn't at all suggesting that we have won. What I am suggesting - unless you can prove otherwise - is that you owe me an apology for dumping the "f" word on me, and also for wasting my time on a Monday morning constructing an elegant put-down when I could have been doing something more useful like filing my nails.
best James
And AR5 is the V-weapons. Horrifyingly noisy, taking a lot of resource but ultimately not very effective.
James: well, my first apology is for wasting your time this morning. And, yes, having read your piece again, I agree that you didn't claim to have won. So here's apology number two: I'm sorry.
Now an attempt at an explanation. Initially, I was responding to pesadia's assertion that you had "scored a knockout in round one ... [and your] opponent lies comatose on the canvas". OK, in my final sentence I got carried away. It happens to the best of us. I still believe, however, that your "small pockets of fanatical resistance" in 1945 analogy is inappropriate. And, yes, I have met people who served in North West Europe in 1945 - my father for one. By 1945, most of the German high command knew they were losing. Now read the transcript of the BBC "Costing the Earth" programme that I refer to above. Do Grayling, Heap, Shuckborough, Slingo and Walport sound like people who even suspect they are losing? I don't think so. On the contrary, they obviously think we are the fanatical resisters.
Cheshire
'the ocean ate my warming'
+1
Robin, the names you mention are more like the Japanese high command than the German. And it may just be impinging on their concsiousness that the progress of the war is " not necessarily to their advantage".
rhoda: yes, it may. But I see no sign of it.
But I dislike argument by analogy. I thought Old Goat (9:59 this morning) characterised the reality of the current situation well: "All things considered, you can't fight dogma with facts." I very much agree. But he went on to say that he wished he knew the answer. Well, I suggest there is an answer. I'm increasingly sure it's to ease off on debating the science and to point repeatedly to the stark reality that the dogmatists' supposed "solution" (attempting to cut emissions by deploying renewables) not only isn't going to work, but is absurdly expensive and seriously dangerous. And there's another even stronger answer: as I argue in my Discussion post AR5 a side issue:
In my view, that's where we should be concentrating our fire.
With shock and awe the Narrative
Advances against Nature;
What native guile do humans have,
Belief when sight is poor?
==========
Robin Guernier
re : using arguments based only on the ruinous climate change act
It would be easier to do if only there hadn't been a factoid produced by the CBI that the green economy was now responsible for 30% of the UK growth. That will now be endlessly quoted back to us. Now you'd hope the CBI would be usually trusted to get something like this right. I'm open-minded. I see some recycling businesses thriving. Solar panels for your house are much cheaper now than they used to be and almost start to make economic sense- if they last. Solid oxide fuel cells could well be the energy supply of the future. None of this would have got anywhere without the scary CO2 meme. So it is not all black and white. I also note that the delay in building nuclear plants, for whatever reason, may have been a good thing - as we may end up using cheaper shale gas instead and not have to pay a whopping future guaranteed sum to the French/Japanese/Russians just to keep the lights on. These deals seem a lot like the ruinous Private Finance initiative; ie pay a little now and a heck of a lot later.
‘Delingpole bashes the IPCC’
And in other news, ‘Pope is (probably) Catholic’.
James Delingpole’s somewhat overwrought column provides an interesting glimpse into a rich inner fantasy life.
From maverick PI investigating a villainous Mafia cartel, to intrepid rebel facing down a vast and all-encompassing climate scam, to conquering hero slicing through pockets of fanatical resistance, James traverses the daydreams of every 10-year old boy.
Analogies are fun, but can be double-edged. There were two sides in World War II, and in the early months of 1945 ‘pockets of fanatical resistance’ on one side fervently believed in the imminence of massive weapons of destruction that would decisively obliterate the enemy at the gates.
That didn’t happen. Has James done a count of the divisions at his disposal?