Skip to content

Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum

February 5, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Dellers has followed up on the attempt to oust a Trump supporter from the American Natural History Museum:

 

 image

If, like me, you love the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, here is a question I can guarantee you’ve never asked.

Never once — as you’ve circumnavigated the blue whale or gawped at those marvelous Teddy Roosevelt-style dioramas in the mammal halls or admired the T-Rex’s jagged 6-inch gnashers — have you paused in deep thought and mused to yourself: “Gee. I wonder if the guys who pay for all this stuff are Democrats or Republicans?”

The reason you’ve never had this thought is because you’re not stupid. Or at least, not that stupid.

You understand — because it’s so obvious that even one of the stuffed primates in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals could grasp this basic point — that the collections in the American Museum of Natural History  have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They have to do with science, which is something completely different.

Science is about studying what is. Politics is about what ought to be or what might be. Science is about objectivity. Politics is about subjectivity.

They really don’t mix and when people try to make them mix it’s a disaster. To believe otherwise, you’d have to deny all the evidence of history, know nothing about the scientific method and be really, really thick.

Thicker than a pickled cuttlefish in a jar of surgical spirit; dumber than a lobotomized mollusk; more basic than an amoeba with severe learning difficulties.

So bearing all this mind, what should we feel towards the bunch of 182 self-proclaimed “scientists” who have written an open letter to the AMNH demanding that it cut its links with trustees and donors whose politics they find objectionable?

My suggestion would be: a mix of pity, embarrassment, and disgust.

Plus, maybe, a judicious soupçon of horror that such imbeciles could have been given tenure at any academic institution where the teaching of impressionable young adults is involved even at all, let alone where it’s financed by hard-working U.S. taxpayers.

So that means you, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University; and you, Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University; and you, Kerry Emmanuel, Cecil & Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and you, many of you others among the 182 signatories of this bizarre, outrageous, and embarrassing letter.

You have these ritzy sounding titles which seem to confer on you an aura of gravitas and scientific distinction. But by putting your names to this spectacularly dumb letter — of which more in a moment — you have relinquished all claim to be taken seriously as voices of scientific authority. You are all, basically, frauds.

Why? Because what you are engaging in here patently isn’t about science. Nor is it, as you profess, about the well-being and credibility of the American Museum of Natural History. No, this is about low-down, dirty political activism. It’s Antifa with a PhD.

Let’s examine in more detail what these fake-science terrorists are demanding in their letter.

 

 

Read the full story here.

14 Comments
  1. February 5, 2018 11:50 am

    There is one thing you can be certain of: James Delingpole has a great way with words, and he doesn’t mince them.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      February 5, 2018 12:01 pm

      Yes, but he uses so many of them he loses impact. He’s self-indulgent. (I know because verbosity is one of my failings as well!)

      Bit more succinct, James!!

      • February 5, 2018 12:18 pm

        The language: “more basic than an amoeba with severe learning difficulties…” is poor. There’s really no point in throwing insults around, even clever ones (which this one ain’t).

        This is far too much like “them and us”, the very identity politics that are causing the trouble in the first place: to the signatories, Rebekah Mercer is in the outgroup.

        Neutrals will be put off by Delingpole’s language. Enemies of reason will not be persuaded by it. Not that anyone from Consensusville will visit Breitbartland to read it – and if they do: what use increasing anger and division?

  2. dennisambler permalink
    February 5, 2018 12:12 pm

    How many of those with placards of “our” museum have actually been within its walls. Usual rent-a-mob, available on demand.

  3. February 5, 2018 12:32 pm

    I thought the article was well written and well stated.

    However, I would further say to Mr. Busch in response to one Tweet:
    –“I’ve loved visiting @amnh since I was a child.” Just when did childhood end for him? From his statements, you can imagine a 2-year-old’s tantrums and flailing on the floor.
    –“There may be no other institution more responsible for drawing me to science and the natural world.” More is the pity as it apparently failed. He shows no understanding of true science nor the natural world.

    • dave permalink
      February 5, 2018 5:45 pm

      “…responsible for drawing me to science…”

      No thinker worth spit needs to be drawn into things.

  4. Patsy Lacey permalink
    February 5, 2018 12:54 pm

    Roger Bootle in today’s DT commented about the latest Treasury fear document but his words could equally apply to so called “climate change”
    “I suppose we should all be impressed by the idea of umpteen equations and number whizzing and whirring in order to unveil the shape of our future. Yet such formal exercises are worthless compared to the judgements that underpin them. Whatever has spewed out of the model is the direct consequence of what has been fed into it. Different models and/or different assumptions would produce completely different results.”
    Nearly 50 years ago an engineer working on one of the first computers an “Emidec” warned me feed c??p in and you get “d??????a out.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      February 5, 2018 1:54 pm

      You can only model something properly if you understand how the system works in the first place otherwise you get GIGO. None of the climate models work as the working of the system is unknown despite the ‘settled science’. The Treasury models can’t be accurate either since how do model something that has never been done before. I was surprised that they considered leaving the EU but remaining in the Single Market would still hit GDP when that is the only exit strategy that doesn’t damage the economy.

      • Broadlands permalink
        February 5, 2018 2:10 pm

        DIDO? Dogma in Dogma out.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        February 5, 2018 2:27 pm

        Hardly. Leaving and dropping all the tariffs that the EU forces to have on imports provides a massive boost to the economy. As does not paying £9 billion a year for nothing. As does not paying all the other money the divorce bill has shown we pay. As does not having all the future regulations the EU will impose on businesses – or do you, like the Treasury, assume that for some reason the EU will no longer do that? As does signing free trade deals more quickly than the EU will in the future.

        Oh and assuming companies make little effort to adapt, when in reality they will develop new markets rapidly – the assumption that the Treasury makes about foreign businesses in terms of our exports but refuses to make about UK businesses.

        Really, you have to make so many upside assumptions about staying in the EU and so many downside assumptions about leaving to get a bad outcome.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    February 5, 2018 2:17 pm

    Regarding a return to the Ice Ages…

    Climatologist, Dr. REID BRYSON was interviewed and asked (back in 1976):

    “How soon will we find ourselves in the next ice age?” One hundred years from now, or 9,000 years from now?” BRYSON replied: “The odds are very small for 100 years and approach a certainty for 9,000 years. There is, to put it another way, just the barest hint of a possibility that we could start a transition into a glacial epoch during the next century. The difference between the climate we have now and the climate we’ll have as we enter a new ice age will be so small here in North America that, for the most part, you won’t even notice the change.”

  6. Dave Ward permalink
    February 5, 2018 2:20 pm

    “You have these ritzy sounding titles”

    “Cecil & Ida Green Professor” – that had me thinking of the late, great Les Dawson & Roy Barraclough:

  7. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 5, 2018 2:29 pm

    perhaps all these protesters should also be refusing to take money from Republicans? It would surely be utterly hypocritical to use Republicans taxes to fund things like science or museum or welfare or anything else surely? Shouldn’t it just be virtuous, Democratic money?

    Particulalry as some of that money might come from fossil fuel employment?

  8. February 5, 2018 2:32 pm

    Reblogged this on HiFast News Feed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: