Skip to content

Dellers Puts Down Jimmy Kimmel

May 5, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




Great Dellers put down of some talk show host, apparently called Jimmy Kimmel:



Jimmy Kimmel is great. Probably the most relaxed, amiable, and funny of all the U.S. talk show hosts, not counting James Corden. But after last night he just lost a fan.

No, I’m sure he doesn’t care about this either. As he made perfectly clear in a segment of his show called “Scientists aren’t ****ing with you”, anyone who disagrees with “the science” on climate change is a complete wing nut – and therefore any criticism he gets from “deniers” like me will be considered a badge of honour.

Even so, if you’re going to go on TV and use your privileged late night ABC TV slot to tell millions of people about the “science” of climate change, don’t you at least owe it to your fans – especially the kids, like my daughter, who really look up to you – to make sure of your facts first?


Kimmel: “The idea that she [Sarah Palin] knows more than 97 per cent of scientists – it’s dangerous and offensive.”

No, Jimmy. What’s dangerous and offensive is for a prominent, influential celebrity to regurgitate proven lies as if they were facts. That 97 per cent claim has been debunked on numerous occasions. It was based on a skewed poll which involved a great deal of cherry-picking – and tells us nothing meaningful about either the current state of climate science or where scientists now stand on it. Even if it were remotely accurate (which it’s not by the way: it was a stunt cooked up for political reasons by activists), science is not a popularity contest. As Einstein supposedly said in response to a book commissioned by Hitler called ‘100 Authors Against Einstein’: “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”


Kimmel: “Climate Change is not a liberal versus conservative thing.”

Actually, Jimmy, it is and we have the stats to prove it. Check out this recent Gallup poll on how many Americans identify as “environmentalist.” In 1991 – 25 years ago – the figure was 78 per cent. Now it has dropped to 42 per cent. But what’s most significant is the way it has now become a partisan issue.

That 78 per cent figure from 25 years ago applied to both conservatives and liberals alike – there was no difference between them. But now, in the case of Democrats it has fallen to 56 per cent, but in the case of Republicans to 27 per cent. It wasn’t before but climate change is now very much a left-right issue. Which is a shame. Just as it’s a shame that you had to turn the Jimmy Kimmel Show into a left-right issue. Why couldn’t you have kept politics out of it?


Kimmel: “This isn’t a matter of political opinion. This is a matter of scientific opinion.”

What, exactly, are you saying is a matter of scientific opinion?

That the planet has warmed slightly in the last 150 years or so? Scientists agree on this.

That man-made CO2 may have an influence on global warming? Scientists agree on this.

But what you’re doing here is the same sneaky trick all environmental propagandists use to advance their agenda: you’re conflating the trivial issues on which scientists do agree with the much more serious ones where they don’t agree and which, anyway, are far too important to be left up to scientists whose narrow specialisms make them ill-equipped to dictate dramatic political and economic policies with impacts far beyond the realm of science.


Kimmel: “2014 was the warmest year ever. Until 2015 became the warmest year ever… Since 2001, we’ve had 15 of the 16 hottest years there have ever been. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.”

Depends on where you get your ‘facts’. There’s copious evidence that the raw data has been corrupted – “adjusted” – by climate gatekeepers eager to make a political point, with earlier years (like the 1930s – the hottest 20th century decade in the U.S.) being artificially cooled and more recent years being warmed. As for this casual use of the word “ever”: no scientist worth the name believes that. There have been numerous periods in earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer – in the Medieval Warming Period, for example. What you mean by “ever” is “since temperature records began”, which is only a matter of a few hundred years.


Kimmel: “97 per cent of climate scientists say the global warming we’re experiencing is very likely due to human activity. That’s NASA.”

Well even if this mythical – see above – 97 per cent are right: so what? Global warming – whether human-caused or otherwise – may very well not be a problem. And even if it is a problem, the dramatic measures these scientists are recommending to deal with it may well be doing more harm than good, so why are we listening to them anyway? As for the recommendation that we go to NASA for our climate science: this is a bit like asking Enron for accounting advice, or Islamic State for women’s sexy beachwear.


Kimmel: “Either you believe in science or you don’t. Why believe scientists on molecules and the speed of light and Cialis but not on this?”

Because even when you insert a cheap gag about erection-boosting pharmaceuticals, Jimmy, it doesn’t alter the fact that you are stunningly ignorant about what ‘science’ actually is. It is not a fixed body of knowledge, immune to criticism or scepticism. Still less – that word “believe” is a dead giveaway – is it about religious faith. Science is a continual process of discovery.


Kimmel: “This is not what I know. This what scientists know.”

And there’s the problem. For liberals “Science” has become the new God, with “scientists” talked of reverently like priests – as though, somehow, they were guardians of a special knowledge beyond the ken of mortal man. If we think of scientists this way – rather than as guys like the rest of us who want to pay the rent – then we impose on them a burden of expectation that they cannot possibly fulfil.

When Matt Damon in The Martian says he’s going to “science the shit out of” his predicament – that’s not reality. That’s a liberal fantasy. Scientists can be pretty good in their specialist fields (though not always; see e.g. the Climategate emails) but beyond that are about as useless as the rest of us, if not more so. We certainly shouldn’t entrust to them the economic and political future of the world. That way madness lies.


Kimmel: “These scientists are not part of some imaginary conspiracy.”

Actually, Jimmy… they are.

  1. Tim Hammond permalink
    May 5, 2016 10:10 am

    I do find these guys amusing. When it’s climate Change, science is all-seeing and all-knowing, but when it’s say a genetic basis for intelligence or the refutation of the Blank Slate, or genetically modified crops or fracking or vaccination, science suddenly loses its omniscience and actors and celebrities can know more than scientists.

    As a group, celebrities challenge “science” far more than Climate Sceptics,

    • FTOP permalink
      May 5, 2016 10:41 pm

      Hollywood’s elite have become self-immunized from the effects of cognitive dissonance. It is derived from a profession where you are always pretending to be something you are not.

  2. May 5, 2016 12:00 pm

    i left this comment in the kimmel youtube video comment section

    the empirical evidence for the attribution of rising atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions is a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative changes in atmospheric CO2; and the empirical evidence for the attribution of warming to fossil fuel emissions is a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming. thus, empirical evidence of AGW rests entirely on correlations between cumulative values. the problem is that correlations between cumulative values are spurious. please see

  3. Dorian permalink
    May 5, 2016 1:32 pm

    So now we are to accept the words of the likes of buffoons and welsh political professors to give the final imprimatur on scientific matters!

    What next? Social workers will be given assent to do brain surgery, Greek history professors will be given assent to designing nuclear reactors, or how about English literature professors assent to do Ebola research? And we can be assured that the television mega-stars like Kimmel, and out-standing scientific intellects like those professors of Welsh politics will be applauding the New Theories that Greek historians will come up with in nuclear reactor engineering, as well as how all those English literature geniuses will discover major break-throughs in Ebola research, and of course lets not forget how those incredible social workers will heal all those people with their unique brain surgery methods.

    Forgive me, I have to leave this commentary now for I feel truly sick. I do believe the proper course of action is for me to go visit the local hair-dresser, where I will no doubt get good sound advice on how to heal myself.

  4. May 5, 2016 1:37 pm

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
    He lost two. Not that he cares.

  5. Roger Cole permalink
    May 5, 2016 3:18 pm

    I am disappointed to see that Delingpole’s response was only in print on Breitbart instead of, as I originally thought, live with Kimmel. That makes it worth about 99% less.

  6. May 5, 2016 6:37 pm

    Just recently, a friend from high school days went off on me with emails having the same tone as Kimmel.
    My reflections:
    1. Climate Change is Now Mostly a Political Football (at least in USA)
    2. The Warming Consensus is a personal timesaver
    3. Science Is Losing the Delicate Balance Between Head and Heart

  7. Broadlands permalink
    May 5, 2016 7:43 pm

    Like many prominent politicians, some religious leaders, and many other celebrities, as a group they must get their “expertise” somewhere. What is the root source of this “received wisdom” on “climate change”? Who provides the fodder for this? Do these root scientific sources of “truth” have names?

    • Dorian permalink
      May 6, 2016 6:35 am

      Yes they do have a name, they are called Morons.

  8. May 5, 2016 7:59 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  9. AlecM permalink
    May 6, 2016 8:30 am

    The fundamental mistake from Arrhenius onwards has been to fail to understand you cannot assume radiative heat flux in a GHG-containing gas is the same as in a vacuum

    There is net zero surface IR warming of the local atmosphere; no bidirectional radiant energy flow. The atmosphere extends the effective radiating surface of the planet over ~35 m.

    It’s all so simple to understand if you go back to first principles. However, Climate Alchemists aren’t taught how to be scientists; their job is to be political pawns.

  10. Steve Borodin permalink
    May 6, 2016 9:23 am

    Can we stop using the word ‘celebrity’ for the likes of Kimmel. He is ignorant, bigoted, arrogant and lives off the gulability of the simple-minded. I find him disgusting. ‘Parasite’ is a more suitable word.

  11. BLACK PEARL permalink
    May 6, 2016 10:19 am

    I must be getting old …. who is he ?????? 🙂

    • Dorian permalink
      May 6, 2016 1:49 pm

      On the contrary sir, this one time when ignorance denotes how you’re becoming wiser.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: