Skip to content

Delingpole: The Shocking True Story of How Global Warming Became the Biggest #FakeNews Scare of All Time (Pt 2)

March 8, 2018

By Paul Homewood



Dellers has Part II on global warming groupthink:



Here is this week’s latest in Climate Stupid:

  • Let’s “solve” climate change by halting economic growth, argues a paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, published in Nature Climate Change.
  • Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe tells a summit in Edmonton, Canada that climate change is “the greatest humanitarian crisis of our times”; confides how shocked she was on discovering, six months into her marriage, that her husband did not believe in global warming. “You have somebody you respect and you also love and you also want to stay married. I said well, ‘Let’s talk about it.’” Apparently it took two years to convince him.
  • Activists at Cambridge University warn of “large scale disruption” if the university’s £6.3 billion endowment fund ignores their demands that it should divest itself of its fossil fuel investment holdings.
  • An ex-White-House staffer from the Obama era tells Washingtonian  about the time her date with a man came to a sudden end when he said he didn’t believe in global warming: “I started laughing, because I’m from Colorado and didn’t realize people actually didn’t believe in global warming. But he was serious.”
  • Climate industrial complex in UK has wasted £100 billion and shut down debate to no useful purpose, warns Peter Lilley – one of Margaret Thatcher’s former ministers.
  • ‘Stop blaming both sides for America’s climate failures’, argues Guardian columnist. ‘The fault lies entirely with the GOP.’
  • Blame consumers not China for climate change‘, warns Clinton-Climate-Initiative-backed pressure group.

I could go on but I wouldn’t want to bore you. Or myself. When you’ve been covering the climate/environment/energy beat for as long as I have, every day is Groundhog Day. Every day it’s the same bunch of troughers, spivs, second-raters, crooks, liars, half-wits, chancers, bottom-feeders and eco-fascists churning out the same old propaganda…

But these scare stories and demands for action are so relentless and ubiquitous that they do invite an obvious question: how can all these different people – from politics, from academe, from the media, from business – possibly be all wrong?

Isn’t it maybe time we listened more carefully to what they have to say?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

Last week, I introduced you to the paper by Christopher Booker that explains why so many people – some of them highly ‘educated’ – can all be simultaneously wrong about so big an issue. They are all, Booker shows, the victims – or, if you prefer, the useful idiots – of a phenomenon known as ‘Groupthink.’

Groupthink was a phenomenon anatomized in the early Seventies by a U.S. sociologist called Irving Janis. As I explained in my piece, it has three rules:

Rule One. A group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not properly based on reality.

Rule Two. Because their common view/belief cannot be subjected to external proof they have to reinforce its authority by claiming ‘consensus.’ The idea is to emphasize that all right-thinking people hold this view and that it is no longer open to challenge.

Rule Three: Anyone who disputes this ‘consensus’ must be excluded from the discussion: at best marginalized; at worst openly attacked or discredited.

I titled my piece The Shocking True Story of How Global Warming Became the Biggest #FakeNews Scare of All Time (Pt 1) a) because I wanted to grab your attention and b) because it’s true.

Even now, I find the chutzpah, the arrogance, the brazen dishonesty of those pushing this #FakeNews non crisis so utterly breathtaking I want to pinch myself in disbelief.

How do they get away with it?

Because they can. Because they always have got away with it.

In this second part of my coverage of Booker’s illuminating paper, I want to give you some examples that show you how and why every day in the world of climate change scaremongering is Groundhog Day. Essentially, what you’ll come to realize is that the people who’ve been pushing this scam have been operating from the same playbook for well over three decades.

Inventing the ‘Consensus’

1992 was a long time ago. To give you an idea how long, the movies you may have watched in that year including Reservoir Dogs; The Crying Game; and The Bodyguard; the albums you bought – well I did – were the Orb’s UFOrb; Dr Dre’s The Chronic; Sugar’s Copper Blue. George HW Bush was U.S. president. We’re talking ancient history here. But one thing that remains fresh as a daisy is the paper written in that year by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was titled “Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.”

No wonder Lindzen sounds so weary when he talks about this subject. He’s probably the world’s greatest professor of atmospheric physics. He’s been saying for over a quarter of a century that the whole global warming thing is a scam, but hardly anyone has been listening for reasons we’ll come to in a moment.

The flaws in the alarmist position Lindzen exposed in 1992 remain the same today: the global warming scare story depends on hopelessly inadequate computer models which place too much emphasis on man-made CO2 and which therefore produce a “disturbingly arbitrary” picture of the state of climate.

What Lindzen also noted in this paper was another thing that remains true today: the remarkable proclivity of all manner of diverse groups to leap on the climate bandwagon.

These include activist NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists; media organizations, such as the BBC, the New York Times and, as they then were, NBC, CBS and ABC; and Hollywood stars such as Barbra Streisand, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford who called for people to stop “researching” the warming threat and to “begin acting.”

This was the Groupthink pressure that prompted that previously skeptical George HW Bush White House to cave and, in 1989, authorize a staggering increase in the federal budget for climate change research. Over the next four years, this increased from just $134 million to a total of $2.8 billion.

Burning the Heretics

A key element in the survival of any Groupthink “consensus”, Janis noted, is that any disagreement must be ruthlessly suppressed.

Anyone who has dares to take on climate change Groupthink has to pay a terrible price. I don’t know a single scientist, journalist, or politician who has criticized the “consensus” and not been made to suffer personally.

The ruthlessness and zeal with which the alarmists pursue heretics borders on the psychotic. There is perhaps no more poignant, shocking, and dismal an example of this than the way Al Gore sought to destroy the reputation of the very man he had once claimed as his inspiration: Roger Revelle, the distinguished oceanographer at the University of California in San Diego. Revelle’s research into increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, Gore claimed in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, was what first alerted him to the “worst threat we have ever faced.”

What Gore hadn’t quite appreciated when he made his powerpoint propaganda movie was that, in the interim, his old teacher’s views on climate had changed.

In 1988, Revelle had written to (notoriously alarmist) Senator Tim Wirth: “We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

Revelle went still further in a 1991 article he wrote with fellow distinguished skeptic Dr. Fred Singer, then professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

Their article concluded: “the scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”

Gore’s response to the inconvenient truth of his supposed mentor’s change of heart?

He pressured one of his associates to put out the story that Revelle was a sick old man with failing mental capacities who had been pressured by Singer into signing the article. This was later the basis of a libel suit, which Singer won.

Gore – by then Vice President of the USA – also rang ABC News’ Ted Koppel urging him to expose Singer as being in the pay of sinister fossil-fuel interests which were funding an “anti-environment” movement. To his credit, Koppel called Gore’s bluff by reporting the Vice President’s attempted dirty tricks on air.

If you’ve read books like my own Watermelons, much of this will be familiar territory.

But in some ways that’s the most amazing thing of all about this extraordinary affair, which must surely represent the biggest peacetime waste of taxpayers money in history, the biggest scientific scandal in history, and the most extravagant and widely promulgated lie in history: the sheer brazenness of these tricksters’ enterprise.

Time and again, their junk science has been shredded, their lies exposed, their dirty tricks revealed.

Yet still they continue to get away with murder thanks to the power of Groupthink.

Too many people are still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Too many people are distracted by the fallacious Appeal to Authority: “Who do you trust? 97 percent of the world’s scientists or Breitbart‘s James Delingpole?”

Well I know the answer to that last one. But then, like you, I’m not stupid.

  1. Athelstan permalink
    March 8, 2018 2:52 pm

    A ways back in the day, I thought that very casually about the great scam, more CO₂ = great for plants, great for evapotranspiration = more clouds = more rain = cooling = equilibrium and that’s what the earth loves, equilibrium, give or take an ice age or four, tectonics, heliocentric orbit adjustments, Milankovitch cycles, solar wind, earth flipping its axis, super volcanoes, asteroid impacts……………you get the picture.

    So really I didn’t give it much thought, it’s just a minor scientific spat and lets face it they were telling us all that the next ice age cometh, from rachel carson to acid rain, ozone layers, Y2K et bloody cetera.

    Then this happened:

    previously skeptical George HW Bush White House to cave and, in 1989, authorize a staggering increase in the federal budget for climate change research. Over the next four years, this increased from just $134 million to a total of $2.8 billion.

    Charlatans hit the VEGAS JACKPOT! All they have/had to do is/was to promise to save the world – slam junk science – innit?

    The saints wept as did heaven and the liars sensed an opportunity, the weasels sensed blood – the investment bankers had a bankfest indulging with the politicians and everybody thought, “we can do the taxpaying public over and over and over”, they did, they still are doing it and from a great height do they defecate upon us. And suck it up most of ’em do, Donald J. Trump is reversing the process, it’s way past time some of the whackos and nutters of green were made to eat their puritanical nutfest of progressive dogmas, vegan inspired home made recipes and all that half baked, merde pie, it will, it must be done.

    Another great piece Mr.. James Delingpole and you Mr. Chris Booker, we’re winning because there is nothing, there never was anything to debate, the science is junk and the models are GIGO.
    Hmm, the real problems are though, the dead from the neck up, the politicians (should I say Westminster) and the only method of making them sit up and pay attention is, to stop voting for them.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      March 8, 2018 6:28 pm

      Y2K was a serious issue. Resolved because a lot of people got on with the brain-numbing task of fixing it.

      • Stonyground permalink
        March 8, 2018 7:04 pm

        Actually, not everybody got on board, some thought that the problem was non existent and didn’t bother to do anything about it. How sorry they were on the 1st of Jan 2000 when their complacency came to bite them on the arse. Oh wait, it didn’t because the whole thing turned out to have been bollocks.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        March 8, 2018 7:57 pm

        It may not have been earth-shattering but if we hadn’t done the work on my systems in ’99 there would have been difficulties in 2000. The point is, it probably would have cost more to live with the problem than to fix it. But I guess your smug comment belies the fact that you never had to manage a large (as in European-wide) computer complex. You wouldn’t even have had a decent PC back then.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        March 8, 2018 8:43 pm


        Not only were some arses bitten in 2000, but some in 2002 and beyond – and interestingly in 2010. See pages 6 and 17 here:

        Fortunately such cases were rare – not because it was bollocks but because of people like Harry who got on and fixed it. Rather than making snide comments, you should be grateful.

      • bob nielsen permalink
        March 9, 2018 12:44 am

        We did nothing over Y2k in our multi-national business, because we reviewed the situation and concluded it was a scam to sell everyone new kit. We did nothing and nothing happened. all systems carried on working until needs for upgrades in line with future development. Yes Y2K was a huge scam. Colgate-palmolive was the business by the way.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        March 9, 2018 8:21 am

        bob nielsen: so what was Pablo Mascolo up to in Argentina in 1998/1999 ( and why was Ulisses Martins bothering with y2k systems adaptation ( And how about the help Jan Polish (“associate director for Y2K compliance at Colgate) gave to suppliers? ( Doesn’t sound like doing nothing.

      • N. Ominous permalink
        March 10, 2018 4:42 am

        bob neilsen, Of course there was scaremongering re Y2K, but there were numerous cases of real Y2K problems being found. A friend of mine worked on fixing Y2K problems with COBOL programs running on very old machines. It was not a question of selling unnecessary hardware, but of making sense of existing programs (which were often poorly documented and written in “spaghetti code”) and fixing Y2K problems when they were found.

      • Alan Haile permalink
        March 10, 2018 3:31 pm

        Y2K was a very serious issue and the person who made a reply saying his company did nothing and the systems all worked fine probably knows little or nothing about commercial IT. His systems all worked fine because the system software would have been made Y2K compliant with releases from the manufacturer. In my case I worked on the Y2K project of a large British Bank for 4 years and it most certainly was not bollocks. In our case it was the application programs that had not been written to be Y2K compliant, with many files having 2 digit year fields and home written date conversion routines embedded here there and everywhere which would not have worked on 1st January 2000. In fact we had a Standing Orders suite that had been written in 1968 and had to be rewritten and replaced by 1/1/1999 as it computed the ‘next payment date’ and SOs could be annual.

    • Athelstan permalink
      March 8, 2018 8:44 pm

      Robin, OK touche, but your nitpicking, it’s an aside, the thrust is still made and you know damn well what I am driving at.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        March 8, 2018 8:50 pm

        Yes, I know what you’re driving at when you mention “ice age cometh, from rachel carson to acid rain, ozone layers …” But Y2K has absolutely no place in that list. To point that out is not nitpicking.

      • Athelstan permalink
        March 8, 2018 11:25 pm

        in your opinion, considered or not.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        March 9, 2018 8:06 am

        Not opinion, fact. See this lecture by Professor Martyn Thomas last year: (Click on “Word Transcript” in RH box).

    • March 11, 2018 8:41 am

      Y2K was definitely a problem, I was a junior developer back in the 90’s and one of my tasks was going through our systems converting all the date fields to larger date types. They had originally been created in the database using the smallest column size to save space (both on disk and in memory) because computers back in the 90’s often had memory measured in megabytes not the gigabytes that are common today. I found loads of dates, including things like DOB’s stored as two digits such as 56 rather than 1956. Of course this meant any DOB entered in 2000 would be stored as 00 and the UI would display it as 1900. True, in most systems it would not cause out right crashes but t would have caused all sorts of problems with age calcs, contract renewals etc. By 2000 developers across the country had spent millions of hours fixing these bugs. The fact that when 2000 arrived there were few issues was not because a problem never existed, it was simply down to hard work from alot of people behind the scenes. I find it offensive when people imply Y2K was an exageration as I was putting in 70 hour weeks for years as a developer to ensure that it wouldn’t be an issue!

  2. March 8, 2018 3:04 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  3. March 8, 2018 3:30 pm

    When I was working I never had the time to look into all this man-made global warming nonsense. When I thought about retiring I saw “The Great Global Warming Swindle” starring my old university mate Piers Corbyn. Since Piers is an extremely clever physicist (in the top two or three of a class of 160), I thought, well I had better look into this. It didn’t take me long to realise that man-made global warming (or climate change as it became known) was a massive scam – in fact the biggest scientific scam there has ever been. Renewable energy was the next scam that fed on the climate change scam.

    Well done James Delingpole for his continuing effort to call out all these troughers, spivs, second-raters, crooks, liars, half-wits, chancers, bottom-feeders and eco-fascists (including politicians).

    • Old Englander permalink
      March 8, 2018 5:38 pm

      I never had the time to look into “all this man-made global warming nonsense” either. Except: having read Lamb’s Climate History & the Modern World as a graduate student (long before it was a hot topic) it didn’t square with the hockey stick when that came out, so what’s going on?

      Many other career scientists seem to have similar experiences. The narrative relies on honest people getting on with their jobs not having the time to look up and notice. The activists have also “packed” the learned societies so that one see the Royal Society (just for instance) hosting public meetings on “decarbonising the UK economy” but not ones on whether the theory generating such “imperatives” is even true.

      The scientific profession, in general, really ought to engage more; but many realise that speaking out is dangerous. I attended a talk recently by a statistician modelling so-called “big data” problems. One of her examples was distribution of phytoplankton around the British Isles over time, plus the keywords “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”. She skipped over the slide saying “… but I’m not going to talk about climate change …” and hurried on. Phew … ! Leave that slide out next time, there’s material enough from other topics.

      What is remarkable, and what Delingpole exposes, is the essentially political alignment of all the activists. I resisted the analysis for a long while because I did not want to believe that a person’s politics would affect their honesty or professional integrity. But it looks like those are now nasty, “right wing”, qualities.

      What is remarkable about Piers Corbyn is that he is as Left as they come, but still tells it like he sees it.

      • Russ Wood permalink
        March 10, 2018 4:30 pm

        I more-or-less accepted the AGW story, until (in the Wellington Te Papa museum) I saw the “hockey stick” for the first time. An immediate thought was “Where’s the Climatic Optimum (now MWP) and the Little Ice Age? This can’t be right!” Later, I read Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear” and followed the links in the appendix. And Wow! Who the furble was lying here?
        So, I began a voyage as a ‘skeptic’ and never looked back!

  4. March 8, 2018 4:22 pm

    A couple of paleobotany courses was more than enough for me. You soon realize how the climate has drastically changed over time. The idea that we are doing anything of substance to it is ludicrous.

    Add to that the endless “models.” This began in the late 1960’s when I was first in graduate school in botany. The “models” have yet to be correct anywhere except on some computer. “Reality” is no longer even considered by the climate change popes as it upends the “models” every time.

  5. Bitter@twisted permalink
    March 8, 2018 5:21 pm

    Why has this scam gone on for so long?
    Simple it is making a lot of money for governments, universities, green energy firms and all the other hangers-on and troughers.

    Just follow the money,

    • Ancient Scouse permalink
      March 8, 2018 7:39 pm

      When you have hold of a Tiger by the tail – you just cannot let go – it will eat you if you do!

    • CraigTee permalink
      March 8, 2018 10:06 pm

      So what percent of government revenue do you think comes from the global warming scam? Where does the money go?

  6. March 8, 2018 5:31 pm

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar.

  7. Ben Vorlich permalink
    March 8, 2018 6:26 pm

    For me the initial trigger to investigate the nonsense was seeing tree stumps at the bottom of 6 metres of peat. These tree stumps were at an altitude where growing trees isn’t impossible but it’s not that easy. This peat is in locations which were buried below a great deal of ice in the last iceage.
    The obvious conclusion was that it was warmer and drier in the past, taking a growth rate of 1mm/y this peat is at least 6K years old.

  8. Tony McKenna permalink
    March 8, 2018 6:36 pm

    ‘I got extra oil, food and logs in, knowing this was coming,’ he said last week.

    I keep thinking about this. Surely a highly paid public servant could afford to buy sufficient oil for the whole of winter. Was he really sitting with an empty oil tank in January thinking winter was over?
    If his tank was empty then it was not the forecast that caused him to stock up just an empty tank in January.
    How could a forecast of one week’s bad weather force him to stock up?
    The only way that what he is saying would make sense is if his tank was half full and he made an unusual purchase.
    Has any journalist asked him for a copy of his oil purchasing history to validate his account?
    That would seem reasonable to me. After all he approached the papers first.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 9, 2018 1:46 pm

      A journalist doing their job? Whatever next?

  9. Mike Jackson permalink
    March 8, 2018 9:31 pm

    I read Booker’s article (as I always do) and was struck even before I read any of the comments by its major flaw.

    Not in the substance of what he wrote but in the purpose of writing it.

    Groupthink can cut both ways!

    Forgive me for being devil’s advocate for a change but there is nothing in the article or its concept which could not be rotated 180° and aimed right back at us!

    And for every time we say “ah! but we …” they can say exactly the same!

    • Athelstan permalink
      March 8, 2018 11:33 pm

      As i was composing my piece above, I was thinking along the same lines Mr. Mike Jackson – indeed.

      Though to me, the fundamental idea, the crux of it is, the preposterous supposition (man made CO₂ = runaway warming) and that’s not science it’s advocacy and they turn round and say, prove it………………how can you prove a non existent phenomenon? again touche.

      Secondly, we’re not the bastards enlightened Socialists increasing the taxation and imposing the green agenda, all of that was done in our name but not with our say so.

      imho, dem’s the points Mike.

    • bob nielsen permalink
      March 9, 2018 1:04 am

      Mike. We state our views and provide our evidence and invite allcomers to debate and deconstruct what we say. Our forums are open to challenge. They make statements and d All three ont provide evidence, and when they do and the evidence is refuted they refuse debate or discussion. Their forums are not open to comment debate or challenge.Thats the difference. Come and debate with us you green cowards! challenge what i say and lets debate it on the BBC! Piers Corbyn has a standing challenge to every climate alarmist cardinal to have a public debate with him. None have had the courage or confidence to accept – that includes Saint brian Cox, Saint david Attenborough and St Stephen Hawking who have all been personally challenged to debate their fantasies and prejudices.All three cowards have refused – because they fear they are wrong!

    • Bitter@twisted permalink
      March 9, 2018 8:17 am

      There is one basic difference, Mike.
      The Sceptical viewpoint does not require us to ignore Karl Popper with it’s arguments.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        March 9, 2018 9:11 am

        I agree with bob and B@t.

        But you’re missing the point. They are equally at liberty to claim that they don’t need to debate because the science is settled. They’re not ignoring Popper; they’ve moved beyond that, because the science is settled.

        “Everyone knows” that doubling CO2 concentrations will lead to a1.2° temperature rise because Arrhenius said so. But they have established that feedbacks will increase that. To their own satisfaction.

        The problem is that *everyone* is susceptible to groupthink. Internally we have no evidence that they are wrong and we are right — but we think we do — just as they have no evidence that we are wrong and they are right — but they think they do.

        The parallel is ‘Catch-22’!

        And it doesn’t matter how many serious scientific papers Pierre Gosselin links to. These people are simply wrong! And that’s all you need to know!!

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      March 9, 2018 9:23 am

      Mike, you are totally correct in what you say.

      Perhaps our group think could be summarised as being Donald Rumsfeldist. We agree with his 4 points including unkown unknowns being the ones that cause most problems, whereas for those of the 97% persuasion there are no known unknowns far less unknown unknowns.

      Since my school days I said I don’t known what I don’t know which has been perfectly obvious when best laid schemes have gone a-gley.

      • James Delingpole permalink
        March 9, 2018 10:41 am

        Mike, this question came up at the report’s launch in the House of Lords. Peter Lilley also whispered the same concerns in my ear, so you’re in a good company. But as I said to Lilley at the time, this is just the kind of pettifogging objection a Cambridge graduate would come up with. Benny Peiser answered the question rather well by pointing out that the people on our side of the argument are not weighed down by dogma. We are perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically heating the planet at dangerous and unprecedented levels. But until a) we’re presented with compelling evidence that this is happening and b) that the hugely expensive remedies currently being forced on us by government are not likely to do more harm than good, then we are bound to remain critical and sceptical. You’ll have to explain to me how this open-mindedness and critical thinking exposes us to the charge of Groupthink.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        March 9, 2018 11:56 am

        Ben, Rumsfeld was roundly mocked for that remark, which I have always thought was desperately unfair. The unknown unknowns are always what will come along to bite you on the ass!

        Considering that the scientific method supposedly requires a high degree of self-criticism and a willingness (if not a determination) to try to prove yourself wrong the extent to which climate scientists have locked themselves into the paradigm to the extent that it is now a cult (there really is no other world that fits) is quite alarming.

        The one area where the skeptics can claim the moral high ground — whether we are “groupthinkers” or not — is that we are not demanding total allegiance to our cause on pain of political or employment death and are prepared to fight our corner with anyone who cares to challenge us.

        But we still insist on trying to argue the science which is where the cult is strong, if only because “science” is something a bit mysterious to a lot of people and scientists, like doctors, tend a bit to be held in awe by your average Joe.

        Climate Change is about politics. Sarastro92 below isn’t saying anything that I haven’t been saying for at least the last decade — this dates back to Strong and Ehrlich (among others) in the 70s and I have filed the best part of 200 quotes (I’ve just been away counting them!) which either directly or indirectly admit that science has precious little to do with it.

        (I also happen to think that a number of the real activists aren’t suffering from groupthink at all. They know very well what they are about!)

  10. sarastro92 permalink
    March 8, 2018 10:02 pm

    The roots of New Feudalism go much deeper to the oligarchs at the Seventies era “Club of Rome… Limits to Growth Crowd”.. Key among these oligarchs was Maurice Strong.

    The Top Predator Oligarchs literally owned the propaganda and political organs then and now, including, especially, key UN Agencies. From this start the Oligarchs used public moneys they created a huge “science” patronage and disinformation machine… designed to appeal to certain middle income- professional class bourgeois fantasy about ditching industrial society and creating a New Dark Ages dystopia.

    Largely this effort has failed, but it’s been a costly failure. The developing sector wants first world life styles; in the US, the middle class is smart enough to reject carbon taxes and other schemes to pick their pockets… And now the tide is turning decisively on the science front and the fraud of green energy exposed in Germany and Australia.

    • Athelstan permalink
      March 8, 2018 11:55 pm

      a good post, that.

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    March 9, 2018 11:02 am

    AGW is one part of a western elites program to reshape the western world while the rest are sleeping on the job. Either you’re in on it or you’re not and if you are there’s benefits aplenty.

    AGW – delivers control over economic activity.
    Coudenhove Kalergi – delivers a non-patriotic, homogenous blob of a (supposedly) controllable populace.
    EU – Delivers total political control of Europe via a nation-state free Europe courtesy of abolished borders and deliberate destruction of national identity.
    UN – Delivers top-down authority, hand in glove with EU and US elites.
    Cultural Marxism – intended to destroy any serious rival from the political Right.

    If you look at the above list it starts to make sense and also shows how close we were to being effectively taken over by the Marxist Left. In the nick of time a political cavalry charge of Brexit and Trump have (for now) saved the west from a truly grim future.

  12. Christopher Booker permalink
    March 9, 2018 2:01 pm

    Re the Mike Jackson point. Of course there is also a good deal of groupthink among those climate sceptics who haven’t really thought through the subject for themselves but merely repeat the memes they have picked up from others. But the real problem, as I say towards the end of my paper, is that, whereas the “consensus” has one simple theory as to what plays a dominant part in shaping the climate, the “sceptics” cannot come up with a rival theory, for the simple reason that the more we learn about climate, the more we realise how little we actually know about what shapes it..
    We can see the flaws in the “consensus” theory, and how it is continually contradicted by the evidence. We have begun to recognise, for instance, how much it is influenced by ENSO and the shifts in ocean currents and by solar radiation – all those natural factors for so long ignored by the AGW “consensus” theory. But we cannot really begin to explain, for instance, all those past fluctuations in climate we have all become so familiar with: why the Mediaeval Warm Period should have given way to the Little Ice Age, why that in turn gave way to the Modern Warming or why after 30 years temperatures declined during the Little Cooling. Let alone why in the Pleistocene we saw successive glaciations interspersed with periods of warming, culminating with that which led to the thousands of years of the Holocene Optimum when the earth was warmer than it is today, None of these things can we properly account for.,.
    In other words, we come to appreciate the thought behind that famous quotation attributed to Newton as the most knowledgeable scientists of his age: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”. The moré we do know, the more we come to realise how much we don’t ‘know. And you can’t make groupthink out of that.

  13. Steve borodin permalink
    March 9, 2018 5:05 pm

    The Hayhoe household will be really happy when she discovers that Armageddon really isn’t happening.

    • martinbrumby permalink
      March 10, 2018 12:06 am

      I can imagine that after 2 years being married to Ms. Hayhoe, one might agree to anything, if only for some peace and quiet.
      This isn’t a sexist point.
      Just imagine being Bob Ward’s wife!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: