Articles Tagged "James Delingpole"
Sorted by:
Date Posted |
Views
Sunday, April 7th 2013, 11:30 AM EDT
Should George Monbiot be hanged by the neck for his decade or so's hysterical promulgation of the great climate change scam and other idiocies too numerous to mention?
Should Tim Flannery be fed to the crocodiles for the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eyewateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
It ought to go without saying that my answer to all these questions is – *regretful sigh* – no. First, as anyone remotely familiar with the zillion words I write every year on this blog and elsewhere, extreme authoritarianism and capital penalties just aren't my bag. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it would be counterproductive, ugly, excessive and deeply unsatisfying.
Click source to read FULL report
Tuesday, March 26th 2013, 6:08 PM EDT
Sir John Beddington, the government's retiring Chief Scientist has been doing the media rounds today, telling anyone who'll listen how "Climate Change" is still a serious problem about which we should all worry greatly.
Has he looked out of the window recently?
Looking out of my window just now, I noticed that the Northamptonshire landscape was completely blanketed in Dr David Viner. Just like it was yesterday. And the day before that, when we rescued two orphaned lambs from the frozen fields. Which isn't something you normally expect in March, is it?
Friday, March 8th 2013, 10:15 AM EST
In response to our complaint to an article by James Delingpole in the Daily Mail on 10 January 2013 the Daily Mail has now published a response from the Met Office Chairman on its letters page.
Met Office mettle
James Delingpole’s views misrepresent the Met Office’s reputation for world-class weather and climate forecasting and research (Mail). The UK can be rightly proud that the Met Office is among the world’s top two national weather forecasting services.
We’re proud that, in independent surveys, more than 90 per cent of the public regard our warnings as useful and more than 80 per cent of the UK public trust our forecasts and warnings. This respect for our professionalism and impartiality has been built over 150 years of forecasting for the nation.
We aim to use our world leading scientific expertise to protect life and property and increase prosperity and wellbeing right across the UK. We provide impartial services ranging from forecasts and warnings to the public, services to transport operators, so we can fly, drive or sail safely, and advice to the energy, retail and health sectors so we can all go about our daily lives safely and efficiently.
Saturday, February 23rd 2013, 7:26 PM EST
James Delingpole Interviews Rupert Darwall about his new book The Age of Global Warming: A History - Amazon Link
Read this review from www.bookdepository.co.uk
Rachel Carson's epoch-creating Silent Spring marked the beginnings of the environmental movement in the 1960s, its 'First Wave' peaking at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The invention of sustainable development by Barbara Ward, along with Rachel Carson the founder of the environmental movement, created an alliance of convenience between First World environmentalism and a Third World set on rapid industrialisation. The First Wave crashed in 1973 with the Yom Kippur War and decade-long energy crisis. Revived by a warming economy of the 1980s, environmentalism found a new, political champion in 1988: Margaret Thatcher. Four years later at the Rio Earth Summit, politics settled the science. One hundred and ninety-two nations agreed that mankind was causing global warming and carbon dioxide emissions should be cut. Rio launched rounds of climate change meetings and summits, with developing nations refusing to countenance any agreement restraining their greenhouse gas emissions - their blanket exemption from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol leading to its rejection by the United States that year, and again twelve years later in Copenhagen. This therefore marked not just the collapse of the climate change negotiations, but something larger - an unprecedented humiliation for the West at the hands of the rising powers of the East.
Saturday, February 16th 2013, 3:08 PM EST
It really doesn't matter where he himself was deliberately lying or whether he was merely lending the gravitas of his office to the deliberate lies of others. The point is that the President of the USA has access to any number of fact checkers and advisers and if he stands up and addresses the nation with a farrago of complete untruths then the buck stops with him. This dissembling and mendacity becomes all the more culpable when it forms the basis of major public policy decisions which will have a serious impact on people's lives in the US and beyond.
So why this snake-oil salesman being allowed to get away with it?
Here's the offending part of Obama's speech.
Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.
Monday, February 11th 2013, 4:44 PM EST
A couple of days have gone by since Leo Hickman revealed to us that David Attenborough had exaggerated the temperature record in Africa, and James Delingpole was quick off the mark not only to point out the BBC Error that Leo had corrected but also that good old Leo was going to be added to Dellers Christmas card list:)
I have no idea what has come over Mr Hickman in recent months (that's correct he is a journalist from the Guardian), but one thing I can confirm he did NOT stitch Piers Corbyn up last year when he posted Whatever happened to the 'coldest May in 100 years'?. Silly me at the time discarded the report as being bias, as I just assumed a journalist from the Guardian couldn't possibly have anything good or objective to say about a failed forecast from a denier:(the Piers Corbyn forecast came to an end due to exceptional an unforeseen solar event) the rest is history, but take time out and read what "Leo" had to say at the time, much to my regret I didn't.
Anyway, I now consider Leo Hickman to be a "Climate Realist", not one you would call from the right wing or centre but non the less I will take an objective look at what he has to say in the future and not use any "Green" marks as there is more then a chance I could agree with some of the things he has to say, yes some, NOT ALL:)....take a look at his update, for the AttenboroughGate story
Monday, February 11th 2013, 8:23 AM EST
The BBC has been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over climate change claims made in Sir David Attenborough's groundbreaking Africa series.
In the last episode of the series, entitled 'Future', Sir David discussed the challenges facing the region.
Speaking over footage of Mount Kilimanjaro, Sir David made the assertion that 'some parts of the continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years'.
However, figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that since 1850 global temperatures have risen by 0.76C, causing widespread concern among viewers.
The comment, first broadcast in the final episode of the Africa series last Wednesday, was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.
A BBC spokesman said: 'There is widespread acknowledgement within the scientific community that the climate of Africa has been changing as stated in the programme.
Sunday, February 10th 2013, 2:49 PM EST
It's not often one looks to the Guardian's environment pages for an incisive and thorough critique of green propagandising. But hats off – really – to Leo Hickman for this ruthless deconstruction of an erroneous claim made by David Attenborough on his latest BBC nature documentary that in the last twenty years Africa has warmed by 3.5 degrees C.
3.5 degrees C in two decades? That would indeed be a remarkable temperature rise in anybody's money. (Remember, since 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C – and we're supposed to find that worrying and significant). Which is why, you might have thought, the BBC would have spotted so obvious an error and removed it before the programme went out.
To his credit, this troubled Leo Hickman, too.
I'd never heard this arresting claim before. If that rate of temperature rise continued over, say, a century, then those parts of Africa would see a deathly rise of 17.5C?! Could that claim really be true?
Monday, January 21st 2013, 5:55 PM EST
When George W Bush declared war on an abstract noun – "Terror" – he was widely and inevitably mocked by the left for his foolishness. Not to be outdone, Barack Obama has used his second inaugural address to declare war on an even more nebulous threat to the security of the world: reality, itself.
Here's how he put it in his inaugural address: (H/T Theo Spleenventer; Bishop Hill)
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.
Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.
Friday, January 11th 2013, 5:10 PM EST
A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper's commitment to environmental issues.
"We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter."
Absolutely. It's what newspapers always do when they're committed to a particular field: close down the entire department responsible for covering it.
But it's still not going to stop some mean-minded cynics sniping and casting aspersions, I'll bet. Why, some of them will be pointing out the eerie coincidence with the Met Office recent tacit admission that "global warming" isn't anywhere near what that their dodgy models predicted it would be. And also with NASA's recent admission that solar variation has a much more significant on terrestrial climate than it has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge. If you didn't know better, you'd almost get the impression that AGW theory has been so crushingly falsified that hard-headed newspaper executives, even ones at papers as painfully right-on as the New York Times, just aren't prepared to fund its promulgation any more.
200 articles found
showing page 1 of 20« previous 1 2 3 4 . . .
19 20 next »
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article