Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!

If the UK Telegraph does not retract and apologize for James Delingpole’s latest piece of pure hate speech, then it is declaring its own publication policies a sham.

Actual photo of Nuremberg trial that accompanies latest Delingpole piece with actual caption, “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann….”

If you ever needed (more) proof that the professional deniers are driven by a mindless rage devoid of any actual science, I urge you to read James Delingpole’s latest piece.

It will nauseate you — consider yourself warned. But I think it’s important to dissect this hate speech in detail because Delingpole seems to think that hate speech isn’t hate speech if you just use rhetoric — the figures of speech, like metaphor.

Having spent a quarter century studying rhetoric and having just published a well-received book on this very subject — Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga — I think I can safely say that is bullshit, though most likely only metaphorical bullshit (see below).

You may recall Delingpole’s 2011 meltdown on the BBC, where they got him to admit he is a hand-waving know-nothing: “It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time…. I am an interpreter of interpretations.” This pieces makes that meltdown look like the height of lucidity.

The piece is also worth examining closely because I think it is indicative of how the deniers and disinformers really feel — and we’ll know if that’s true if none of them denounce it.

The headline is “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists.” Delingpole is going to lecture us plebes on our native tongue.

Under the headline is the photo above, which is one of the popular pictures of the post-WWII Nuremberg trials in which Nazis were tried for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” The Telegraph‘s caption is simply, “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann….” That would be George Monbiot, Tim Flannery, and Michael Mann.

Yes, that’s right, this isn’t hate speech just from Delingpole — senior editors at the paper must have signed off on all this. Oh, but it gets much worse.

The piece opens (emphasis added):

Should Michael Mann be given the electric chair for having concocted arguably the most risibly inept, misleading, cherry-picking, worthless and mendacious graph – the Hockey Stick – in the history of junk science?

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 eye-wateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

It doesn’t matter how many times the Hockey Stick is independently verified, the anti-science crowd just hate, hate, hate it and Dr. Mann with a force that is beyond reason. Note that he offers no evidence against Mann or Monbiot or Flannery here — mainly because there isn’t any.

Apparently it’s not enough for Delingpole to smear people for wanting to avoid catastrophe by reducing CO2 emissions — he even wants to smear them for adaptation. Now we can’t even plan for climate change without being subject to fact-free hate speech from the deniers.

Oh but you see, Delingpole thinks he can write such smears as long as he puts them in the form of a question and then follows with this (emphasis added):

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.

The last thing I would want is for Monbiot, Mann, Flannery, Jones, Hansen and the rest of the Climate rogues’ gallery to be granted the mercy of quick release. Publicly humiliated? Yes please. Having all their crappy books remaindered? Definitely. Dragged away from their taxpayer funded troughs and their cushy sinecures, to be replaced by people who actually know what they’re talking about? For sure. But hanging? Hell no. Hanging is far too good for such ineffable toerags.

What more proof is needed that hate speech is the “logic” of deniers?

By the way, this trick of “pretended denial” — smearing someone by putting it in the negative (“I’m not calling my opponent a liar, but …”) — is so old the Greeks classified it as a figure of speech 25 centuries ago! And here it is indeed just rhetorical denial — as evidenced by the absurdist addition of “*regretful sigh*” and, even worse, “the mercy of quick release” and “Hanging is far too good.” Anyone who “read English at Oxford” as Delingpole snearingly asserts a few sentences later would know that.

Let’s take a quick look at the alleged “terms and conditions for and all associated websites”:

In submitting material to us, you warrant that any material you submit:

… (6) is not obscene, threatening, menacing, offensive, defamatory, abusive….

If Delingpole’s piece doesn’t count as “threatening, menacing, offensive, defamatory, abusive” then it is quite safe to say that nothing does. It should be retracted, the Telegraph should issue an apology and then fire him.

Delingpole then doubles down by bringing in — what else? — a Nazi war criminal metaphor (emphasis in original):

This isn’t to say that there isn’t a strong case for the myriad dodgy scientists-on-the-make, green activists, posturing and ignorant politicians, rent-seeking corporatists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats and hopelessly out-of-their-depth environment correspondents who talked up the global warming scare to be brought to account for the vast damage they have done to the global economy, for the people they have caused to die in fuel poverty, for the needless regulations they have inflicted on us, for the landscapes they have ravaged with wind farms, and so on.

Indeed, it would be nice to think one day that there would be a Climate Nuremberg. But please note, all you slower trolls beneath the bridge, that when I say Climate Nuremberg I use the phrase metaphorically.

A metaphor, let me explain – I can because I read English at Oxford, dontcha know – is like a simile but stronger.

Well, yes, metaphors are arguably the strongest of the figures of speech. As I discuss in my book, back when Lincoln was (briefly) in Congress in 1848, he attacked his opponents for using a metaphor against him and got them to give it up. He then said:

The point–the power to hurt–of all figures consists in the truthfulness of their application; and, understanding this, you may well give it up. They are weapons which hit you, but miss us.

Lincoln, the greatest student rhetoric of all U.S. presidents understood all too well that the figures of speech are (metaphorical) weapons that have “the power to hurt.”

Obviously you could hardly have a literal climate Nuremberg since those were post-war trials of Nazis for crimes against humanity. The point–the power to hurt–of the metaphor is in its suggestion that there is some truthfulness to the analogy between climate scientists and Nazis, some actual analogy between performing climate science and performing war crimes. If there were no analogy, there’d be no point in the metaphor.

So yes, a metaphor can be used to smear and to hurt. Delingpole himself tells us he knows that metaphors are stronger than similes, so he is pointedly not making a simile. That is, he is pointedly not saying he wishes we could have something “like” a Climate Nuremberg or something that “resembles” a Climate Nuremberg.

The great rhetorician Winston Churchill, who as a young man published a terrific essay, “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric” (which one hopes they read in Oxford), wrote of analogies:

Whether they translate an established truth into simple language or whether they adventurously aspire to reveal the unknown, they are among the most formidable weapons of the rhetorician. The effect upon the most cultivated audiences is electrical…. One such will make a speech or mar a measure.

Again, metaphors are exceedingly powerful and can have an electrifying effect, which is precisely why I urge people to use them — but wisely!

Delingpole actually continues with examples that prove the case against him:

So when, for example, a rugger team boasts in the shower room after a particularly brutal match that it “raped” the opposition, it doesn’t literally mean that it had forcible sex with the other side even though that may be – if you’re incredibly thick and literalistic and looking for offence – what it sounds like.

Memo to Delingpole: This is precisely why you never see the word “raped” in that context — at least in the sports pages of the unwashed United States. The metaphor is far too strong to be used that way in the public arena.

In case you were wondering why Delingpole is going on and on with this lame defense of hate speech, he explains:

Anyway, I mention all this by way of reference to a piece I wrote in The Australian, the other day. It was headlined “Deluged with Flannery and covered in Viner”. It’s well worth a read if you can negotiate the paywall. For those who don’t want to, let me treat you – for free – to the final sentence.

“The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.”

How do you hang an “industry”, I wonder. How exactly do you put a rope round a dodgy computer model?

… Seems to me that it’s quite an impossibility. But there are others who don’t, clearly, for the day after the Australian article ran I was gobsmacked to read on Twitter that a small cabal of weapons-grade pillocks from the further extremes of the eco loon movement had chosen to interpret this phrase as some kind of demand for “climate scientists” to be executed.

Seriously. So what Delingpole is saying is that because you can’t literally put an “industry” on trial (which actually isn’t true, but never mind) then you can’t criticize him for suggesting, metaphorically, that this so-called industry — composed of scientists and activists — be put on trial.

That is metaphorical bullshit. Heck, for all we know, it may even be literal bullshit, but we’d have to go to England and see what medium Delingpole actually composes the drafts of his columns in to find out — and I doubt any of want to wade in that deep.

I am reminded of that far better English writer, Lewis Carroll, who created a character that is the metaphorical kissing cousin of Delingpole:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Delingpole literally does not want the word “metaphor” to have any meaning whatsoever. He writes:

I’m going to come back to this subject again because I think it’s one of the deadliest threats to freedom in our era: what I call the Liberal War on Metaphor….

For the moment I want to conclude by saying this: the real menace is not the fairly small minority of hard left activists, whingeing Guardianistas, professional victims and bien-pensant ideologues who seek to silence freedom of speech by cynically creating moral equivalence between metaphorical violence and real violence. (cf also, for example, the way the US left tried to pin the blame for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on the “inflammatory” rhetoric of people like Sarah Palin).

Apparently Delingpole is unaware that people like Lincoln and Churchill fully understood the power of metaphors to hurt and to rouse a crowd.

As it turns out, I discuss the Giffords-Palin case in my chapter on metaphors. As I explained:

During the 2010 midterm election, Sarah Palin “marked with cross hairs” some districts of congressional Democrats “she had targeted for defeat,” as the Washington Post reported. Arizona Democrat Representative Gabrielle Giffords, “whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence.” Many argued these cross-hairs were a visual metaphor inciting violence.

When Giffords was later shot, Palin herself came under figurative fire. And she returned fire:

“Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

The term “blood libel” was one of the worst metaphorical misfires imaginable: “The phrase refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander—the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals—that has been used as an excuse for persecution.” Whether or not Palin understood the full implications of the metaphor, the use of those two words blew up the rest of her message and was widely seen as contributing to her declining poll numbers.

Apparently Delingpole thinks it is perfectly fine to “metaphorically” mark some politicians in cross-hairs. And the response to Palin’s misuse of the “blood libel” metaphor again underscores the fact that metaphors can hurt.

By the way, Delingpole’s whole notion that this is somehow a “liberal war on metaphor” is laughable. Who precisely gets so worked up over the term “denier,” arguing (weakly I believe) that the term inherently must connect one to a Holocaust denier?

What really is a difference between all of Delingpole’s noxious metaphors, including his wish for a “Climate Nuremberg” and the Heartland Institute comparing “Climate Science Believers And Reporters To Mass ‘Murderers And Madmen’:

Leo blog : The Heartland Institute conference billboard in Chicago

Oh, but it was just a metaphor by Heartland, folks, so no one can possibly take offense. Nor I suppose can Delingpole take any offense at my analogizing him to this Heartland campaign.

I have wasted enough time on this disingenuous rhetorician who justifies the term applied to the worst of the Greek rhetoricians — Sophist.

I repeat, If the UK Telegraph does not retract and apologize for James Delingpole’s latest piece of pure hate speech, then it is declaring its own publication policies a sham.

109 Responses to Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!

  1. martin golder says:

    This is so unbelievable that I even wonder if such an idiot as this guy Delingpole even exists.

  2. George Monbiot is a British journalist. He,or the Guardian where he publishes, may decide to sue under British libel law, or complain to the police that a criminal hate speech offence has been committed. The Telegraph‘s lawyers will have cleared the op-ed but they may be wrong. Let’s hope so.

  3. Endofmore says:

    Delingpole is famous–or infamous–over here for his wacky views, but those wacky views pull in readers to his blog and to the newspaper that grants him spewingspace.
    As long as it’s all rightwing sciencehate, then his readers are having their opinions reinforced, which neatly fits the overall outlook of the Daily Telegraph.
    On numerous occasions I’ve ponted out, on his blog, that for his viewsto be correct would require thousands of scientists working in as many universities across the world, in hundreds of disciplines, who cannot agree on the time of day, would on the single issue of climate change, collaborate to perpetuate a hoax to wind up Delingpole and his readers. The same loonytoon thinking applies to Limbaugh and many others. As long as people read and hear what they want to hear, they go away happy.
    And of course come back to read more

  4. Dromicosuchus says:

    Hrm. Delingpole’s an obnoxious idiot with a loudspeaker, yes–but at the end of the day, that’s ALL he is, and I’m not sure it’s worth giving him the time of day no matter what he says. I’d also object to the sentiment that “The piece is worth examining in detail because I think it is indicative of how the deniers and disinformers really feel — and we’ll know if that’s true if none of them denounce it.” Making a claim about an opponent and then taking a lack of a response as confirmation of that claim doesn’t really strike me as valid. Said opponent could choose not to respond because they don’t think it’s worth dignifying with a response, or because they simply didn’t notice it, or because they were going to respond but couldn’t because they had to degauss their wombat, or any number of other reasons other than their being so flabbergasted by your keen, incisive insight into they’re simply left aghast, gums flapping as they struggle futilely to come up with some defense.

  5. Jim Speiser says:

    “Only Hitler was like Hitler.” — Rachel Maddow

    By the way, I was one who defended Sarah Palin when everyone started pointing the finger at her. The dead at Tuscon were still warm when Palin became the “target” of left-wing ire. She was not the first to use the cross-hairs metaphor, and indeed it has been used in Democratic campaign strategery as well. I thought it was premature and particularly vicious to lay all the blame at the doorstep of someone who is, after all, a basically decent human, a mother, and someone who is obviously in way over her head and doesn’t belong in the rough-and-tumble political game in the first place. To me, she is to be pitied, not pelted with vitriolic opprobrium at every turn.

  6. Superman1 says:

    I have seen no segment of the political spectrum willing to assign responsibility where it belongs: the desire of the vast majority of the Earth’s residents for a lifestyle heavily dependent on the unlimited and ‘cheap’ energy which fossil fuels have supplied, and will continue to supply.

  7. Ken Barrows says:

    In this post, there is a video link to “are heated driveways worth the expense?” Very funny.

  8. Sou says:

    He’s skating on thin ice there. The UK has a law against ‘inciting’. Don’t know if it covers this or not.

    My guess is his readership is dropping. With pieces like that one it’s easy to guess the sort of lowlife readership the Telegraph is looking for.

  9. Robert Nagle says:

    (Most of my comments are eaten by the spam filter, but here goes).

    I think you are taking his shock-jock rhetoric far too seriously. I view his rhetoric as trollish and over-the-top just to attract attention. I would compare it to Anne Coulter’s vituperative language which seems to have no attention other than to call attention to herself. (There’s a hilarious online test to see if you can tell the difference between quotes by Ann Coulter and quotes by Hitler. I totally failed it!)

    Extreme metaphors can be useful — especially in poetry and fiction. In political discourse, they can can be too distracting. People react too viscerally to the comparison and not to the things being compared.

    My problem with James Delingpole’s piece is not its metaphors but simply that it is dull and petty. It just doesn’t say anything important other than to complain about things which aren’t that important. Also, he probably could have gotten his message across in 1/3 of the words.

  10. This sort of hate-mongering is the precursor to violence. It’s hard for reasonable people to take this semi-coherent fertilizer seriously now, but when the crisis hits and things get unreasonable abruptly, it could yield fruit.

    So it was with Hitler himself. He was regarded as something of a Delingpole, a right-wing crackpot on the fringe, until his moment arrived.

  11. Lou Grinzo says:

    Delingpole is a purveyor of hate porn.

  12. Jack Burton says:

    His obvious discomfort at being questioned, even in the most polite terms, marks him out a mentally unstable man. Look at his physical reaction to a logical question. This man is on the payroll of the Fossil Fuel industry, either above board or under the table. He is great at shooting off his mouth, but has nothing to back up his blowhard verbal puke.
    That he can be taken seriously and given major newspaper print space, just means that the Public Relations Firms hired by Fossil Fuel Industry are quite good at getting their message out with the aid of lots of money to spread around.
    I simply say, take note of this guy, get his story down in the record, when the day comes, people like him will enjoy the hall of shame along with others who seek only to prevent humanity for prospering long term. The short term profit motive is killing the planet. This much is undeniable. Behind most of this denial is a worship of people like Ayn Rand and the worship of greed. There are a whole set of people who believe man’s highest aim on this earth should be profit and greed. Short term profit that is, long term profit would come from a sustainable world.
    Right now we are hell bent on killing off the climate we have lived in since the rise of civilization.

  13. While it’s easy to mock and dismiss Delingpole’s post as mere nonsense, It’s good that Joe took the time to put it in its place. As commenter Sou (#3) points out, this is certainly a form of inciting, even if it doesn’t quite fit the legal definition in England.

    There have been death threats against climate scientists in Australia. The right-wing (worldwide) has no rational argument to be made against climate science, and they remain in power by stirring up hate against various enemies: blacks, muslims, socialists, climate scientists. Remembered what happened with all the gun rhetoric — “don’t retreat, reload, and so on” — that Sarah Palin, Fox News and the rest were pushing? The Gabby Giffords murders. In the states we have people like Michelle Malkin calling environmentalists “thugs” on national media.

    It boils down to a potentially dangerous situation in which some nut actually starts shooting at climate scientists, or climate protesters. We need to keep going after people like Delingpole, especially when they preach violence as a solution to the “debate” about climate change.

  14. Gingerbaker says:

    as opposed to the unlimited and cheap energy that we could provide with solar and wind, right? That’s what you meant, right?

    Not that we should blame ordinary people who enjoy a modern living as if they have done something wrong and deserve to be punished and to suffer for their sins?

    Surely you didn’t mean that. Again.

  15. Jeremy Cavanagh says:

    Delingpole is strange, I once watched an interview on BBC World with him and Monbiot and at the beginning of the interview he said to the interviewer that he liked Monbiot. He then deliberately turned to Monbiot and carefully stroked Monbiot’s arm. Monbiot froze and said nothing. It was a really creepy moment on live television.

    However, what others have said is that Delingpole craves attention and these hyperbolic pieces are certainly designed to get him attention. We will all go into overdrive over this piece and Delingpole will lap up the attention. I’m not saying we should ignore Delingpole because there are some people who believe what he writes and thats the scary bit. Does Delingpole believe what he writes, hmm, thats a hard one to answer.

    I’m interested in the reference to Flannery from Australia and maybe Delingpole is following poltical rhetoric from there because just the week the leader of the conservative opposition in Australia, Tony Abbott (a nasty lying little man) announced that Falnnery’s position as Climate Commissioner would be cut if he becomes Prime Minister after the Sep 14th election. Further to that the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia (a ‘thunk’ tank that makes Heartland look intellectually reasonable) gave Tony Abbott’s party a list of things it wants done in government which includes shutting down every climate related activity and not content with that they have drawn up a hit list of scientists in Australia’s BOM and CSIRO they want fired. Real Nazi stuff.

    So dozy is Australia’s main stream news media that this list passed without much comment even though Abbott’s party draws much of its policy ideas from the IPA.

  16. Kay says:

    To say a thing with ornate adjectives, ostentatious analogies and frilly verbs…does not make it true. Though such utterances be danger laden.

  17. Theodore says:

    Would anybody read what James Delingpole writes if he took the opposite opinion? The psychological or financial need to generate controversy could be a primary motivator for many climate deniers.

  18. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    If you take Delingpole’s column but rewrite it so it talks about climate deniers, I wonder if he’d be the first to start ranting?

    E.g. Should Steve McIntyre be given the electric chair for having concocted arguably the most risibly inept, misleading, cherry-picking, worthless and mendacious graphs – the Wegman Report Hockey Sticks – in the history of junk science?

    Delingpole would be the first one screaming in outrage if something similar to what he wrote had appeared first. Actually, if something like that were to appear now, he’d still scream without any trace of being self-aware of his own hypocrisy and double-standards.

  19. Joan Savage says:

    He quotes himself in an earlier piece, “The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.”

    My immediate reaction was, “No problem. Bring it on!”

    Pile up evidence of recent climate change: shifting plant and animal populations, disease incidence, incidence of severe storms and droughts, melted sea and glacier ice, methane emissions, terrestrial temperature trends, heat content of oceans, and the rest. Don’t just rely on a select few. Put up all the evidence that the climate has changed rapidly. We don’t even have to touch verification of model predictions until late in the case.

  20. Martin Lack says:

    Delingpole’s insanely illogical contribution to the BBC Documentary you mentioned was the reason I got into blogging about climate change deniers.

    What I find hardest to believe is that the Telegraph newspapers are willing to swap the objective reporting of facts for the anti-reality of climate change denial purely to try and bolster its falling popularity: This can be the only explanation for a recent editorial piece effectively claiming that green energy is a waste of taxpayers money and a distraction from getting on with the business of burning all the Earth’s fossil fuels simply because they are there…

  21. Peter Baker says:

    I agree – Depol’s piece looks like desperation to me, because he’s losing the argument – or just losing it…

  22. Superman1 says:

    “Not that we should blame ordinary people who enjoy a modern living as if they have done something wrong and deserve to be punished and to suffer for their sins?”

    We are in the ‘mess’ today precisely because ‘ordinary’ people have consumed fossil fuel like there’s no tomorrow. Even if we had instant conversion to wind and solar, I don’t see any solar-powered aircraft or cruise ships on the immediate horizon, and you et al would continue to support use of fossil fuel for these luxuries. At a time when the atmosphere has higher CO2 concentration than is healthy.

  23. Is DinglePole serious? A joke? He is once again advocating burning scientists because truth is trumping political/economic policies. Does that shitbag think he’s Stalin?

  24. Francois T says:

    “as opposed to the unlimited and cheap energy that we could provide with solar and wind, right?”

    You gotta a particular problem with a source of energy that is renewable? If so, what is it exactly that bothers you so much?

  25. Juergen says:

    Should there be a Nürnberg trial?
    Absolutely! All the climate change deniers should be held accountable, for the billions of dollars, or euros, they are costing the world economy. Of course there should be no capital punishment, but monetary retributions.
    Those are the same arguments we heard years ago about the ozone layer. Every skin cancer victim, in the Southern Hemisphere should be in court suing those fools for every penny they are worth.

  26. Francois T says:

    James Delinpole should be hanged by the balls; alas, such a maneuver is physically impossible in his case.

  27. Henry says:

    Don’t be too sure about his readership numbers going down. The paper wouldn’t let him spew this drivel if no one was buying in to it.
    People in the UK are on edge these days with the unusually cold and prolonged winter that is just now coming to an end. There were, unfortunately, many more deaths than normal among the elderly this year. Energy prices are way up there too and people are worried.

  28. BlackDragon says:

    My first thought on seeing this post was “why give Delingpole even more publicity?” – I have been trying to forget he even exists.

    But I think this “calling out” of crazy is unfortunately going to have to become more common as Delingpole and his ilk get more desperate, so thanks for taking the time and space to take this apart in detail.

  29. Syd Bridges says:

    The Telegraph has been known as the “Torygraph” as long as I can remember and has always been a right wing propaganda sheet. Its previous owner, Conrad Black, ended up in jail, and its current owners are reclusive Scottish billionaires, and patriotic tax exiles.

    I was unaware that Oxford English students learned sufficient math, physics, and chemistry to be able to disprove global warming. My obviously inferior chemistry degree from Cambridge did not enable me to read Anglo-Saxon or critique Shakespeare or Dryden, though I did study the absorption bands of carbon dioxide.

    Delingpole, a self-described “interpreter of interpretations,” is our version of Rush Limbaugh. Like those who originally faced charges at Nuremburg, Delingpole has reverted to hate-speech in place of rational argument. What is really sad is that the dwindling readership of the Telegraph tolerate this substandard journalism.

  30. Endofmore says:

    The problem with ‘renewable energy’ is that it is mostly electricity
    And the problem with electricity is that you can’t eat it, or use it as a base feedstock for any of the hundreds of thousands of things we use to sustain our civilised infrastructure
    There is a refusal to accept that we have spent 250 years digging up hydrocarbon fuels, and burning them
    That’s what our modern civilisation consists of: building bigger machines so that we can burn more fuel faster.
    The more we dig up and burn, the more GDP we have, the faster we burn it, the faster our growth %.
    That is what we are, machine minders. You can drive machines with electricity, but they won’t produce much. Neither can you build machines with electricity. You cannot build a windfarm solely from the output of a windfarm
    And if the don’t produce anything, we do not have a ‘market economy’
    Without the machines, our civilisation is over and humankind goes back to the middle ages—-or if we continue to fight over the last resources of fossil fuels (as is likely) –back to the stone age
    This is why the rantings of Delingpole and his ilk are irrelevant.
    The climate will eventually take care of itself whatever we do, our insistence on ripping the planet apart to burn more fuel is an indication to mother earth that we have become an infestation.
    Humanity has outstayed its welcome, the planet is using climate, through heat wind and flood to remove our excess numbers so that the rest of the biosphere can return to a reasonable existence without interference by humankind

  31. Robert In New Orleans says:

    Not Delingpole, but Dingalingpole!

    I would not want to touch him with a ten foot or 3.05 meter pole.

    He can’t help it if he was dealt a short pole by nature.

    He is from the shallow end of the gene pole.

    He is short a few poles of a full stack.

    Definitely got the short end of the pole.

  32. Joan Savage says:

    I’m grateful to read of the Telegraph’s dwindling readership.

  33. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Yes, there is an increasingly exaggerated and desperate tone as has been noted here before. It was to be expected of course as they continue to lose the battle as the effects of destabilization become more tangible. But what next? ME

  34. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Nice logic, nice analysis, a little gem. Will he respond? That could get really interesting, ME

  35. BlackDragon says:

    Endofmore, your catalogue of of inconvenient truths cannot be denied, that much is certain.

    Yet, as obvious as those truths are to some of us, I think we should still build as much renewable generation capacity as we can, as fast as we can. By no means do I believe this will allow our culture to continue in any fashion similar to how it works now, but it could allow some things to continue, for at least some time, and we can learn how to do it better as we go.

    There are ideas out there for solar installations, for example in the Sahara, that could be self-sustaining – building more solar with only solar input and desert sand as feedstock. I would love to see that happen. Probably not realistic, though – certainly many other inputs go into the solar build process, and this idea is probably just as much pie in the sky as it sounds.

    I don’t really see us as being either “welcomed” or kicked out for being bad guests – it is all just ebb and flow.

    Would be nice if we could figure out some way of holding on to something, if we can find even a small sustainable path, somehow.

  36. BBHY says:

    I just took a look at the comments over at the T-graph. If anything they are even worse than the article.

  37. BlackDragon says:

    The truth of this cannot be stressed enough. Seeds that are planted, over and over and everywhere, tend to eventually bear fruit when conditions are right.

    It isn’t just one person or one particularly crazy rant that tips everything over, but we could wake up one year to realize that a great big superhighway of darkness is channeling all kinds of hell into our world, through the freaked out, blown out, primal reactions of many millions of very stressed out humans.

    If we ask ourselves at that point, “how could this have gotten so bad?” – certainly Delingpole would have been one worker busy building that superhighway.

  38. BlackDragon says:

    “But what next?”

    Meaning what level of crazy is coming next, or what can we do next to find a peaceful way to wind ourselves out of this crazy multiplying mess? (AGW, PO, PE …collapse?)

  39. Paul Klinkman says:

    Dirty bird journalism goes back to the founding of America, at least. Early cartoonists simplistically drew the Devil as being on the side of the opponent’s leader.

    The first cheap shots draw readership. People are drawn to watch bar fights. And so, in this way the cheap shot artist draws in ad revenue.

    However, at some point the general public starts to get really nauseated by a wave of baseless charges. At this point, the paper’s advertisers realize one by one that their good name is being associated with cheap hatred, and it’s a disaster for their business. When all of the paper’s advertising revenue dries up the billionaires in charge have to choose between running the rag at a huge perpetual loss, just because they like the paper’s politics, or bowing to financial realities.

    The best way of puncturing waves of thoughtless hatred is by reaching readers with a simple message: the paper’s editors care nothing about forthstraightness, and if you keep reading the rag you’ll spout their nutty message in public someday. You’ll look like a stooge at work and suffer consequences. Is that what you want in your life?

  40. Steve Rankin says:

    Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most conservative people are stupid.

    -John Stewart Mills

  41. Adrian says:

    Oh goody! Another Republican-created wedge issue to bash Conservatives with.

  42. Merrelyn Emery says:

    My own prediction is that the deniers will dwindle to an ever more extreme cult where they literally, as well as metaphorically, scream into the wind. I think the Aussie response to the death threats provides some sort of a model – all the relevant authorities and police got onto it straight away and despite the deafening noise, the govt stayed on course and implemented the carbon price. The deniers are still there but it is much quieter and the last horrific summer convinced a few more, ME

  43. Jonathan Maddox says:

    My reply is to Endofmore:

    Electricity is not *directly* convertible into food, but it is entirely substitutible for the fossil fuels which form the vast majority of feedstocks for industry and for the inputs to agriculture.

    Electricity can be, and already is, converted to hydrocarbons to produce renewable fossil-equivalent fuels :

    There is no logical reason why the energy output from wind turbines should not be used as the energy input for every step in the production of more wind turbines. Extrapolate at will.

  44. Chris Winter says:

    I pity Sarah Palin for the mere pittance of a fee she’s able to earn for every appearance on the rubber chicken circuit.

    Obviously these paltry sums won’t sustain a family of five.

  45. Mark A. York says:

    He’s akin to the Canadian attack dog, Mark Steyn. It’s all the same wingnut crap.

  46. Lore says:

    Looks like Delingpole and his rag are getting all the attention they could have hoped for. I very much doubt a retraction or apology will be forthcoming.

    I’m more curios as to how his defenders respond to this. Apparently, “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”, has already posted a go to your corner and think about it James post, you very bad boy you. Explaining somewhat that Mr. Delingpole was driven to this madness.. Therefore he should consider taking a time out along with Joe here for being so disingenuously incensed by the piece.

    Laughably , no comments were allowed to protect the reputation of the usual knuckle draggers from further accusations and embarrassment upon them, him and his blog.

  47. FrankD says:

    When living in the UK twenty-some years ago, I read the Telegraph for preference, even though the Guardian was a batter match for my own views. At that time it maintained a high standard of journalism (including excellent cricket coverage!) which despite and because of being filtered through a prism of right-wing priviledge, made for thought-provoking reading.

    It has long-since lost any such claims to excellence, and is stuffed with brainless rehashing of reactionary frothing, epitomised by Delingpole’s lucrious bloviation. Or perhaps a better description would be what H.L.Mencken dubbed “Gamelielese”:
    “Addressing such simians, the learned doctor acquired a gift for the sort of discourse that is to their taste. It is a kind of baby talk, a puerile and wind-blown gibberish. In sound it is like a rehearsal by a country band, with only the bass-drummer keeping time. In content it is a vacuum.”

    But I did get one laugh out of his spittle-flecked rant. Puny swot Dellers knows what rugger players talk about after a game? As if! He’s too weedy to carry out the half-time orange slices…

  48. Chris Winter says:

    Since he read English at Oxford, I tend to think he’s fairly intelligent and probably doesn’t believe what he writes (though it would be interesting to see his university transcript.) Thus he’s the rough equivalent of our Ann Coulter.

    That being the case, it’s worthwhile to expose his drivel from time to time, and to notice if he gets canned. When that happens, we’ll know some sort of tide has turned.

  49. Chris Winter says:

    Yes, for someone who touts his Oxford degree in English, his writing skills are not impressive. Looking at the Amazon customer reviews of the four political books he’s written shows they’re so full of logical lapses and recycled unfunny jokes that they repulse many conservatives.

  50. Jeff Poole says:

    Funny how the denialists are getting so very much louder and more unhinged when it’s self-evident that they’ve won…

    Look at the facts.
    Obama threw any chance of international action under a bus at Copenhagen and continues to do nothing of consequence.
    Australia – the world’s largest coal exporter – is on track to increase exports by 80% in 20 years. It’s also passed a carbon ‘tax’ that’s paid polluters rather than penalised them.
    Britain is now using open cut mines in residential areas in a desperate attempt to dig more up.
    Canada is he’ll bent on turning several provinces into tar sand mines.

    They’ve won, why are they screaming so?
    Could it be, just perhaps, that they are screaming to drown out the quiet voices of reason and logic that tell them they are committing genocide…

    Could this be Delingpole’s conscience bugging him so much that he projects his self-loathing onto the enemies that he knows are correct?

  51. Jeff Poole says:

    ME you keep on talking about our carbon ‘tax’ like it penalised emitters. It didn’t, it PAID them!

    Australia is in the coal business – as confirmed by state premiers and the PM – and until conservationists become the ‘Eco-terrorists’ we’re routinely smeared as and sabotage all coal production we will continue to be accessories to genocide.

  52. Bobby says:

    Unfortunately I think the only way out of this is by using methods that rely on local, micro-communities. Green architecture which regulates its temperature and does not use fossil fuels has to be implemented. If we can grow our own food through new permaculture methods then there is a chance. Masanobu Fukuoka made major breakthroughs, and his book, ‘The One-Straw Revolution,’ may be one of humanities few saviors at this point. As the global economy crashes, seeds and strong communities will be the peoples only hope.

  53. EDpeak says:

    At least half right, Jeff. I was surprised to not find the word “project” in all the comments, so started readign them one by one…during which period, your comment was posted. So yes, psychological projection…

    but maybe also the deniers at least partly understand consciously that *they* are guilty of genocide-promotion, *they* would be on trial to be hung or otherwise executed..(if progressives believed in capital punishment…which most of us, myself included, do not)…this “generous” offer to not execute those they falsely acuse of being guilty of what the denialists themselves are in fact, actually guilty of…is maybe partly knowing way of forgiving themselves, or saying they (the denialists) should not be executed..even though unlike the false charges against sciencists, the denialists do have the death of millions as their legacy..

    .at some point, I wonder if we are helping the bad guys when we spend time and effort carefully “arguing against” their more insane statements..if they said “cutting GHGs will lead to death of babies and to genocide and to rape” will we even dignify that with an answer of “no it won’t” and dignify it with an explanation as to why? And then add “but Not cutting GHGs will lead to, at least, suffering and likely death of millions” and just reply directly?

    “When you are caught with your hands in someone’s pocket, shout ‘thief! thief!’ and point vigorously somewhere else” as Chomsky points out; because then if and when they deny it, and say “no, I’m not the thief!” well guess what? You’ve already won an important battle: you’ve shifted the
    entire discussion away from the fact that YOU are a thief..the discussion changes to whether or not they are.

    Similarly if Mussolini ran calling himself a “compassionate conservative”
    the media bites the bait and argued: “is he, or is he not Compassionate?” he wins, he has shifted away from “is he or is he not
    a deranged fascist?” they’ve Shifted the debate to our defending science with “no, we are not equivalent to those who
    oppressed Galileo!” ok…but no matter how well argued and eloquent or even convincing our reply is, they win the battle of shifting the debate away from what counts: away from whether or not *their* actions, their denials is the real witch hunts and further, threatens death and misery to untold millions..

  54. BlackDragon says:

    Jeff and EDpeak, I think you are both right about the various projection dynamics. At the same time it is a conscious effort to stir up more clicks and comments.

    But really, if we are going to be compassionate, let’s start at home. Unless you have lived entirely off-grid, inside a cave or on a desert island from the day you were born, you are thief, I am a thief, and Delingpole is a thief. We have stolen the future right out from under our grandkids and all of their grandkids, and we can’t stop stealing more! Every time I turn the key in my car, which I do as sparingly as possible, I am partly responsible for the coming genocide.

    The machine owns us now, and nature will have to step in and pull the plug for us. We are doing a piss poor job of pulling our hands out of the damn monkey trap.

    Let’s hope the future has some compassion for all of us.

  55. prokaryotes says:

    So Delingpole wants to kill himself, since he is against safeguarding our environment…

  56. Jeff Poole says:

    But as mentioned above, us humane folk don’t go in for executions. Yet.

    We’ll just have to rely on one of the gun-loving rednecks he’s duped getting a tad angry and aiming in the right direction for once.

  57. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Jeff, I know many people were unhappy with the design of the system, I wasn’t rapt myself and would have preferred a straight out tax on emitters with no concessions and no trading. But to say they are paid rather than paying when the govt has all those $ coming in seems silly, ME

  58. Merrelyn Emery says:

    They are screaming because the followers are dropping off. That’s what happens when public opinion hardens against an extreme minority and the leaders can’t or won’t give up, ME

  59. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    As the Right’s global neo-feudal project to immiserate the 99% to enrich the 1% heads into failure due to economic collapse and ecological crisis, Rightwing hatemongers are growing totally deranged, perhaps out of fear of retribution when the crisis reaches boiling point. In Australia the hatemongers at the Murdoch excrescence are similarly losing the plot, and in the UK the hate campaign launched last week by the Tory press and the loathsome Cameron regime, against ALL welfare recipients, using the deaths of six children as cannon fodder, simply reinforces my oft repeated contention. Rightwingers are not ‘mistaken’, ‘ignorant’,’ill-informed’-they are evil, and they hate other people, with increasingly undisguised fury. We must turn the tables on them and actively plan for and canvass support for laws outlawing crimes against humanity through knowingly destroying the life-sustaining biospheres, and for those responsible to be punished, retrospectively, with no statute of limitations. And, as with Streicher, the propaganda hatemongers must not escape justice.If we did so we might finally show that we mean business and that we mean to defeat the Evil Ones, not keep flapping our arms impotently every time they commit some new outrage.

  60. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Not ‘whacky’- just evil.

  61. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    The weather in England has been brutally unpredictable the last few years, and the reality of climate destabilisation is hitting home. Peak denialists like Delingpole must be getting worried, because their target audience are the type who will turn very nasty when they realise that they have been lied into a catastrophe. When a rat is cornered, it turns vicious in its life and death struggle. Not to compare Delingpole to rats-I have too much affection for my murine friends for that.

  62. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    I’m always surprised and dismayed when I see this sort of comment, if you’ll forgive my presumption. Delingpole and the scores like him in the Rightwing MSM, and the thousands of like ‘minds’ amongst their camp followers, are not joking. They hate us, the sane, rational, humane ones, those who know the truth of our predicament and are torn by its reality, with utter fury. The atmosphere of outright hatred of Greens being fomented in the Anglosphere by Rightwing hatemongers is very, very, real and ever increasing, and we would be mad to just laugh it off. These people are mad as Hell, and they intend to make someone pay for the obvious collapse of their brutal neo-liberal capitalist Utopia.

  63. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Delingpole is no longer exceptional. Similar villainous hatemongering is rife in the Rightwing hate press, and its true-it will bear fruit, strange fruit.

  64. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Tony ‘Climate Change is Crap’ Abbott has already promised to close down all climate destabilisation organs, including the ones producing the science. The IPA is the Liberal Party’s own propaganda tank, and is just about the most ferocious denialist sewer in the country. And Flannery is hated with truly unhinged viciousness by the Right here. As I have stated many a time, when confronted by reality and by the collapse of their evil world-system of neo-feudal exploitation and brutality, the Right will not ever concede error, but will grow increasingly deranged, and fascistic violence, which has always served them well in the past, is not far away. In the poor world environmentalists have been murdered and ‘disappeared’ in their hundreds for decades, and there is no doubt in my mind that Western neo-fascists are capable of just such atrocities, particularly after repeated indoctrination in raw hatred.

  65. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Environmentalism is the expression of a greater love for life, than for money and power. Hence the Right’s fanatic, and increasingly homicidal, hatred for it.

  66. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Exactly, but not just monetary punishment. Life at hard labour, without parole, working in environmental repair, for the worst criminals, and lesser sentences for the others.

  67. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    In Central America in the 1980s, an atmosphere of social and class hatred evoked by the Rightwing press always came just before the death-squads started business. In the poor world hundreds of environmentalists have already been murdered for defending life. We must not, absolutely not, ignore creatures like this and think that they are kidding, or will just go away.

  68. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    In Central America in the 1980s, an atmosphere of social and class hatred evoked by the Rightwing press always came just before the death-squads started business. In the poor world hundreds of environmentalists have already been murdered for defending life. We must not, absolutely not, ignore creatures like this and think that they are kidding, or will just go away.

  69. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    They are the Right’s stormtroopers, there are thousands and thousands of them, they swamp almost every comments page, clearly being favoured by the Rightwing MSM ‘Thought Police’, and they have been brainwashed into fanatical hatred of environmentalists. We had better not kid ourselves about how they will act when the going gets nasty.

  70. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    There are scores of them-at least a dozen here in Australia, just the really extreme ones, and the message is the same- environmentalists are the new Communists, the ‘watermelons’ and they need dealing with before they take away our plasma TVs,air-conditioning and SUVs.

  71. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    This is vital. Rightwingers are generally gutless, and if we made plain that the knowing disinformers are going to face trial for crimes against humanity, it would ‘concentrate the minds’ of many, and many of the Delingpoles would disappear, or start to feel threatened, which would be a very good development, indeed. It is the sense of impunity that drives them to greater and greater obscenities.

  72. Well, I have to say that he has one cool phrase in there – when he talked about centrists who like to assume that both sides of any argument must have equal merit. He called it the “the dog poo yogurt fallacy.” That is a phrase that is just begging to be stolen by someone who can put it to much better use that he does.

  73. Endofmore says:

    well, nutter or not—he’s got what he wanted by stirring up argument in here

  74. tim bastable says:

    Whilst I agree that “Roundthepole” is an utter idiot, who as a professional controversialist, has no place left to go except wild insults and rhetoric, accusing him of “hate speech” just plays into his hands.

    Blogging about this, and similar articles, he uses this reaction to characterise greens as over sensitive delicate flowers (and he does have a point)- so lighten up a bit Joe – the guy is using typical robust english satire – he’s trying to be funny – and he is an idiot – best ignore him – And I hope when we are obliged to write about this self centred ego maniacal twit, the rest of the world starts using my name for him – just remember “Roundthepole”!

  75. Icarus62 says:

    Delingpole knows perfectly well that everything he writes is unscientific nonsense – he’s simply an unscrupulous hack trying to cling on to his job by being outrageous. He has no qualms about trying to destroy the reputations of decent and honest climate scientists in pursuit of that aim.

    The problem is that some of his followers are seriously disturbed and could well be incited to violence by his words and Delingpole knows it. That to me is criminally irresponsible.

  76. Endofmore says:

    reply to Jonathan Maddox and Blackdragon
    Our current infrastructure was built on the extraction of hydrocarbon fuels that gave us an investment return of 100:1 on oil extraction, and 50:1 on coal. That return gave us the means to build cities, transport systems, healthcare and provide us with the lifestyle that means that we only have to work an hour or two for a weeks worth of food (that’s our bottom line here)
    the critical part is the return on investment
    Yes we have the technology to recycle carbons from the atmosphere, but it’s the energy investment that’s the problem.
    Right now we are struggling to maintain our environment on an oil return of 20:1, or even 4:1 on tarsands, or 1:1 on biofuels,
    if we go to carbon recycling, we go into negative return, in other words we have to expend more energy to get liquid fuels that way than those fuels can deliver in energy output
    As to solar panels in the sahara. wow! right now, theres a string of desert dictatorships imploding, I can see imams screaming about ‘infidels’ taking our ‘holy sunshine’, and the latest incarnation of holy warriors sitting quietly by while cables suck sunpower out of the Sahara to feed the decadent fleshpots of the west

  77. Joe Romm says:

    Sorry, satire that ain’t. Satire isn’t defensive.

  78. Paul Buddery says:

    Or even John Stuart Mill, Steve.

  79. Jan Freed says:

    The analogy may be thus: we are taking a medication we need, but the side effects are killing us. Another medication exists. It is effective and no side effects.

    Yes, we all need energy, just not the kind with fatal side effects. This is possible now with wind and solar. So, we need, as leaders, responsible adults who are beholden to their electorate to foster the transition.

  80. ccaissie says:

    Yeah I caught that one. My head exploded.

  81. ccaissie says:

    They hate us. I’ve come to the conclusion that hate/anger is rooted in fear, as a natural reaction. So what are “they” afraid of? Losing power, losing identity, losing the clan, just plain ol’ shameful losing.

    Likewise we’re angry because of our fear of the damage they will do.

    Rational thinking and action is above the mechanical fear-hate scenario, but it requires actual rewiring or suspension of the lizard brain. And a lizard brain is hard to rewire for rationality.

    This will require an evolutionary step, which may be in process now…it’s just a bit rough.

  82. Mike Roddy says:

    Correct, Mulga. The Right treats us like chumps, and our negotiators are defeated before they start.

    All we have going for us is the commitment to stop ecocide and starvation. The fact that money has triumphed so far doesn’t mean that it will continue to. One reason they are so hysterical is that they know in their hearts they are evil. Let the ones like Delingpole flail about, but they need to be reminded that it’s quite clear that he, Watts, Morano, Boyce, and Koch will be the ones held accountable, not climate scientists, for Christ’s sake. That’s called “projection” in psych speak.

  83. ccaissie says:

    I keep coming back to this:

    What is the most intelligent and effective action I can take now?

    It must vary with each one of us, but to take the time to center ourselves is important.

    Resist the temptation to clobber these idiots, as negativity is THEIR dysfunctinal tool.

    Resolve to truly understand what and who we are dealing with.

    Read Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and remember that this is a chronic human situation, not a unique event. We must find real ways to deal with it, or perish.

    Study, keep cool, learn where and when to act. Be conscious in the face of fear. We must become deep warriors for ourselves, our loved ones and the natural order.

  84. Please, saying that ‘sophist’ is a term of abuse is like saying that ‘lawyer’ is. That last shot was badly inconsistent with the rest of your piece.

  85. James W. Crissman says:

    This is the crap they spew when they have no data. Too much time wasted on a sputtering fool.

  86. Jim Treacher says:

    Your shrieking is delightful.

  87. jk says:

    I think Delingpole and Coulter and their ilk do believe what they say.

  88. BlackDragon says:

    Yes, EROEI is what it is all about. Your points are all right on target.

  89. Mimikatz says:

    Delingpole is, according to his bio, age 47, so he will likely live until midcentury, by which time we will know who is right. In fact, for deniers I’d bet 2020 or 2025 at the latest will be soon enough for even them to see it.

  90. Mimikatz says:

    Unfortunately that is likely to be too late for the rest of us, I’m afraid. Fortunately we don’t have to wait to act, but it would be infinitely easier if these ignorant shills would just be quieter. And even more unfortunately, it isn’t about who’s right but who’s left.

  91. Joe Romm says:

    I’m afraid the connotation of sophist is bad — worse than lawyer, actually.

  92. Douglas Bush says:

    Is a lawsuit limited to national boundaries?

    Michael Mann currently has an active law suit against Tim Ball in Canada. This suit is still moving to court…

    People who listen to Delingpole aren’t proving that they are skeptical about science. They aren’t proving that they are gullible.

    And who’s slinging the Neo Nazi rhetoric around? Hmm… What kind of man is he?

  93. Artful Dodger says:

    With apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan:
    ♫ A British troll is a soaring sole ♫
    ♫ As tarred as a Exxon bird ♫
    ♫ His energetic feet should be ready to repeat ♫
    ♫ A plutocratic word ♫
    ♫ His nose should run and his mouth should drool ♫
    ♫ His look should flame and his lips should fool ♫
    ♫ His lungs should heave and his pen should scribe ♫
    ♫ And his palm be ever ready for a hand-out bribe. ♫

  94. Anne van der Bom says:

    Humanity has come a long way since the days of Galileo. In the 21st century scientists are no longer silenced because they are perceived as a threat to an ideology.

  95. Klon says:

    They see the world changing, turning away from what they view as “traditional”, the “White Male” power club eroding, other world views ascending. It scares and threatens them.

  96. Artful Dodger says:

    Clearly for the Libertarian Right to be this flustered, they must believe that their precious Keystone XL is in real peril.

    Let’s drive the stake through that blood-suckers oily heart. Wood, sunlight, and crossed pen will finish this vampire pollutocrat night crawler.

    Come back when your ready to talk about Keystone H20. Punk.

  97. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Part of the Right’s never-changing plan is precisely to foment hatred and provoke rage in the non-zombified members of society. A rage-filled society suits them, as shite does pigs.Rightwing pathopsychology is like any neoplastic process in that it provokes inflammation and other toxic effects throughout the entire victim, leading to cachexia and general wasting. Delingpole wants to be hated by the sane humansm and I’m happy to accomodate him and all his ilk.

  98. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    In golf, ‘shooting your age’ ie scoring 70 when you are 70 years old etc, is considered quite a feat. Delingpole is ‘shooting his age’ in relation to his IQ, and will soon be in over par, even quadruple bogey, territory.

  99. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    He is a Rightwinger. An extreme example, to be sure, but just towards the end of the continuum. There are, believe it or not, worse specimens of the type.

  100. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    For the Right hatred and anger are tools for intimidation, to enable them to be ‘winners’ while the frightened and cowed ones can live as ‘losers’. Absolutely inextricably linked with hatred and anger is violence, which the Right worship, because it satisfies their egomaniacal delusion that they are ubermenschen, of a higher type, usually in racial, sectarian or cultural terms, but certainly in ideological ones as well. To bully or pummel someone else into submission, to frighten them into acquiescence, gives the Rightwing extremist a rush of glorious self-adoration, and it simply feeds his belief that other people are untermenschen whose weakness invites and justifies repression and submission. Hence ‘Shock and Awe’ where the victims are meant to be so demoralised by the sheer brutality of the violence that they psychically collapse and can offer no resistance.

  101. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Just imagine if his rant had Jews, or business leaders, as the object of his homicidal hatred. There’d be no talk of ‘satire’ then.

  102. Eric Nesbitt says:

    Delingpole is an idiot of course – or no, worse: he’s a rather intelligent man who chooses to squander his talents by spewing vitriol on a topic he knows less than squat of.

    However, the whole point of his post was that all these threats are metaphorical. Let’s not seek sensation where there is none. His is just an angry rant, harmful only insofar as it misinforms a public with voting rights. But he’s not inciting violence.

  103. HMcHJr says:

    Depends what’s meant by silenced.

  104. Scott Johnston says:

    New research has confirmed the hockey stick is right. Warming over the past few decades is unprecedented in recent history.

  105. XLTreeHugger says:

    New research has confirmed the hockey stick is right. Warming over the past few decades is unprecedented in recent history.

  106. Gaia says:

    – The Telegraph, Delingpole & Nuremberg Trials –

    There’s no doubt James Delingpole is blowing the dog whistle here to maliciously target the very people whom likely care about life most, conservationists and environmentalists. Still, we can’t allow such a demonized portrayal of ourselves to play in the blogosphere for public consumption without a response. No way, this shill for Big Oil and the Telegraph just painted a target on you, me our families and about 97 percent of the scientists that work in the discipline.

    – Note Photo Comments –
    Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann

    What we have here is but another example of Inter-Generational pillaging by another mouth piece for the Fossil Fuel Cartel. Maybe some day, in the not to distant future, Mr. Delingpole and the cartel he represents will find themselves before a Global Warming Tribunal for the destruction of the Holocene Biosphere.
    Please do contact your government representatives and disclose your concerns for such malicious rhetoric by the Telegraph and its so called journalist.

  107. Fragmeister says:

    Sadly the Daily Telegraph long since lost the plot on things like serious journalism. It is now a much more middle brow paper with some decidedly strange views. The biggest surprise is that they have a real scientist, Steve Jones of UCL, who can write the socks off Delingpole, doing a column on science every week or so.

    By the way, the ugly “metaphor” about a rugby team ‘raping’ the opposition is really weird. You are much more likely to hear of one team ‘murdering’ the other when they beat them by a large margin. What could Delingpole be thinking about?

  108. Eve says:

    The Met Office says “The jet stream, like our weather, is subject to natural variability – that is the random nature of our weather which means it is different from one week, month or year to the next. We expect it to move around and it has moved to the south of the UK in summertime many times before in the past. It has, however, been particularly persistent in holding that position this year – hence the prolonged unsettled weather.”

  109. gtb says:

    I completely agree with Mulga.

    To help spread the truth, click here: