Delingpole, J

==

see breitbart

sea level rise

see willie soon

Right-Wing Media Rush To Defend Industry-Funded Climate Denier Willie Soon

02/24/15

Conservative media have been quick to rush to the defense of climate science denier Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has recently come under fire for accepting over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry without disclosing this conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. Among the most impassioned defenses of Soon was an article penned by a writer at the Daily Caller with connections to some of the organizations that funded Soon's research.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center detail the extensive and problematic relationship between the fossil fuel industry and Soon, one of the contrarian scientists often cited by prominent climate science deniers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). The documents reveal that Soon described many of his scientific papers, which largely focus on the claim that the sun is primarily responsible for recent global warming, as "deliverables" produced in exchange for money from fossil fuel interests. The revelations, which were recently covered by several media outlets, reveal a potentially serious breach of scientific ethics in at least eight of the papers Soon has published since 2008, and the Smithsonian Institution has directed the organization's Inspector General to investigate Soon's ethical conduct.

Several right-wing media outlets are already aggressively defending Soon. Shortly after the initial reports, the Daily Caller published an article criticizing the “attack campaign” against Soon by “firm believers in global warming.” The article's author, PG Veer, dismissed the criticisms of Soon, claiming that opponents “are looking for conflicts of interest” rather than challenging Soon on “the facts.”

Yet Veer himself is a former fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, which was created from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation -- one of the organizations that provided money for Soon's research. Veer currently works for the Franklin Center, which has received significant funding from Donors Trust, another organization that bankrolled Soon.

Breitbart has also carried Soon's water, defending him in at least five different articles so far. Columnist James Delingpole defended Soon for “telling the truth” about climate change, writing that the latest news is a “continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking -- and incredibly brave -- scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.”

The site also published two op-eds from co-authors of Soon's latest study -- one asserting that the left is “panic[king]” over their paper's “threat to global warming alarmism,” and another claiming that “attacks on independent researchers” like Soon and the “misrepresentation of climate research results” are “an evil every bit as pernicious as direct scientific fraud.” Breitbart also published letters from Soon's colleagues “defending his professional integrity,” and a column criticizing Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak for tweeting a link to the New York Times story on Soon, which the Breitbart author dubbed a “hit piece.”

While Breitbart would have readers believe that Soon has produced "impeccable science," Soon's research has been thoroughly panned by climate scientists for its flaws. His argument that solar activities are primarily responsible for climate change is widely rejected and conflicts with the overwhelming scientific consensus than human activities are to blame. As the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt noted, the sun likely accounts for at most 10 percent of recent global warming, meaning that "[t]he science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless."

It has become increasingly clear that the only point of Soon's research is to “deliver” on climate science denial for his fossil fuel benefactors.

---

omg covid delingpole zinc grift

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/08/10/how-uk-climate-science-deniers-turned-their-attention-coronavirus-covid-19

no pix twt

on  December 31, 2019 many of us were reflecting on the past year and thinking about what opportunities lay ahead. Few were paying close attention to early reports ofunexplained cases of pneumonia thousands of miles away in Wuhan, the large capital city of China’s Hubei Province.

But less than three months later, on March 23, Boris Johnson was ordering anational lockdown to try and stop that virus, by then known worldwide as COVID-19, from raging across the UK. This came 52 days after the chief medical officer of England hadconfirmed the nation’s first two cases.

The coronavirus crisis once again saw the UK divided — between those putting their trust in public health experts and their recommendations, and those quick to question the science on which the government claimed to base its decisions for controlling the pandemic. For those who have watched the decades-long efforts to slow climate action, this was a familiar phenomenon. And the coronavirus pandemic seemed to give fresh ammunition to some familiar faces.

A close look at commentary on both COVID-19 and climate change reveals significant crossover between unqualified voices casting doubt on experts recommending action.

Why?

“There’s nothing mysterious about this,” says Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of cognitive science, who studies the persistence of misinformation in society at the University of Bristol.

“I think COVID is just climate change on steroids in a particle accelerator,” he says. “The same forces are happening: You have the inevitability of a virus which is the same as the inevitability of the physics. And opposing that you have politics which motivates some people to deny the inevitables and instead resort to bizarre claims.”

Find out more about the crossover between COVID and climate science denial in DeSmog's special series

'No need to panic’

Commentators with a history of casting doubt on established climate science first turned their attention to COVID in the days just after Chinese authorities ordered the 11 million residents of Wuhan, a city the size of London, intolockdown.

On January 24,Ross Clark, a columnist for The Spectator who has lamented“hysteria” around COVID-19, said there was “no need to panic about coronavirus” despitewarnings from leading epidemiologists about the potential spread of the outbreak.

On January 29, British economistRoger Bate similarlyargued on the website of theAmerican Enterprise Institute (AEI), a climate science denying free-market lobby group, that news reports around COVID-19 were unnecessarily sparking a major political reaction.

“A contagion will happen at some point, and it’s important we recognize it and react. Unless the coronavirus mutates into something far more dangerous, this isn’t it,” he wrote[spectator pix]

the idea that governments and the media were overreacting to the coronavirus threat was echoed by libertarian online magazine:{Spiked:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:,which has takenfunding from notorious backers of climate science denial theKoch family, and hasincluded Bate and other AEI scholars among its contributors. It published an article as early as January 30 saying there was“mass hysteria in the newsrooms” around COVID.

By mid-February, the World Health Organization had declared that the threat of COVID-19 spreading across the world was“high” — yet a relaxed attitude continued to prevail among some commentators.

On February 19, centre-right blog ConservativeHome published an article by**Daniel Hannan**, a columnist and former Tory MEP,claiming that COVID-19 was unlikely to be as lethal as the common flu.

Hannan, a leading figure in the UK’s campaign to leave the EU, haslinks to various American lobby groups that have spread misinformation on climate change including theCato Institute and theHeritage Foundation. He encouraged ConservativeHome readers to “cheer up” and discouraged “panic” over the virus. That message was taken up by Clark in anotherSpectator article, arguing that “coronavirus hysteria” was “the latest phenomenon to fulfil our weird and growing appetite for doom"

[pix]

clark told DeSmog he stood by his analysis but acknowledged: “Clearly, COVID-19 took off more than I, or virtually anybody imagined it would at that stage.”

“There is a very broad range of opinions among virologists, epidemiologists and others who might be regarded as expert in this field,” he said, “so the idea that I am at odds with some mythical consensus of expert opinion is false.”

“I have been around long enough to know there is no such thing as scientific consensus on either issue [climate change or COVID], nor indeed on any matter where evidence is still emerging and open to wide interpretation,” he added.

Even after the World Health Organizationdeclared the contagion to be a pandemic in early March, commentators who have long cast doubt on warnings issued by climate scientists continued to deny that COVID-19 was a major threat.

Mail on Sunday columnistPeter Hitchensclaimed that Britain was infected by a “bad case of madness,” arguing that restrictions were bein and “unreason.”

The language was familiar: Hitchens has previouslyrejected science showing human activity is responsible for global warming, and labeled measures to tackle climate change such as environmental taxes asa “sort of madness.”

For Lewandowsky, this “hysteria” narrative is part of a wider phenomenon of undermining expertise across the board, from Brexit, to climate change, and now COVID-19.

Lewandowsky points out that this also extends to many on the fringes of the political debate, such as controversial commentatorKatie Hopkins, who had over a million Twitter followers before the platform banned her, and has said the public were being“played” by the government for being asked to wear face masks. Or Brexit Party leaderNigel Farage, who described a police visit to his home as “lunacy” after he apparently broke lockdown rules.

Both have also cast doubt on the reality an of climate change.

“They’re quite explicit about saying that one person’s fact is another person’s lie, because that then enables them to avoid accountability,” Lewandowsky argues.

Miracle cures and conspiracy theories

These commentators’ contributions to the debate haven’t been without consequence. Some have spread conspiracy theories that have had real-world impact, while others have admitted to ignoring official safety guidelines, putting the public at risk of catching the disease.

ColumnistJames Delingpolewrote in a March 28article for the Spectator Australia titled ‘Wu Flu Notes’ that he had gone about his daily business despite having symptoms that align with coronavirus and that it was possible he had “infected lots of graduates.”

Some days later, Delingpole posted a tweet claiming a “high-powered zinc formula” had helped him recover from the illness without the need to go into intensive care – despite little being known about whether any such formula can be a cure for the virus.

He went on to write, “what I’d like more than anything is for this stuff to be available on the open market for everyone. But to mass produce it my friend needs ££££. If I crowdfunded it who’d be interested?” He concluded his request by asking for “potential big money backers."

[twt]

delingpole’s zinc promotion was comparable to comments made by US conspiracy theoristAlex Jones, who, a few weeks prior, hadreceived a cease-and-desist letter from a top New York attorney based on claims he had marketed and sold fraudulent COVID-19 treatments on his conspiracy website. US President Donald Trump was also widely criticised for suggesting that disinfectant taken internally could be a treatment for the virus.

Theories about miracle cures can take hold partly as a result of personal politics, Lewandowsky argues. Under lockdown, “you’re asked to stay at home and to look after other people by not doing what you’d like to do, and that is very challenging if you’re a believer in personal freedom and autonomy,” he says.

The same can be said of the motivations for spreading misinformation on climate change: “A lot of climate denial is very high-pitched, frenetic, emotional, angry, toxic – and that’s all triggered because people’s identity is at stake.”

The desire to reach for conspiracy theories may also stem from a need to feel that individuals still retain some control, says Evita March, a senior lecturer of psychology at Federation University Australia. “Conspiracy theories offer the believer some comfort in that there is still behavioural predictability,” she says.

And there were plenty of conspiracy theories flying around, pushed by long-time climate science deniers.

Piers Corbyn, brother of former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, was quick to promote the idea that coronavirus was thefault of politically liberal billionaires, and that it was related to the**Chinese-developed 5G mobile network**.

The latter conspiracy, alsopromoted by Infowars’ Jones, had significant real-world consequences. Over the Easter weekend it wasreported that 20 phone masts had been subject to arson attacks. According to Mobile UK, the trade association for four mobile network operators, an estimated 50 masts had beentargeted by April 15

[bbc pix]

david Lawrence, a researcher at campaign group Hope Not Hate, told DeSmog that theories around 5G have existed for a number of years, so “the stage was already set.” ”When the global COVID-19 outbreak occurred, there was both a susceptibility to be exploited and a ready-made explanation to hand,” he said.

“In some ways this is similar to climate change,” said Lawrence, “in that people who work in industries that would be negatively affected by efforts to reduce carbon emissions might be more likely to find reasons to reject the scientific consensus.”

Such conspiracy theories become popular — whether in relation to climate change or COVID-19 —  because they are a means of “simplifying and attributing blame,” particularly during a time when “people feel that they have lost control over their lives,” says Lewandowsky.

“Some will seek comfort in the idea that there are bad people out there causing the pandemic because, for some, knowing there are bad people responsible for terrible things is more comforting than to assume that these things are uncontrollable,” he says. “It allows people to direct anger at someone.”

Distrusting modellers

Many commentators directed their fire at a familiar foe — scientific models.

On April 1, the same day the United Nations announced thepostponement of the annual UN climate change conference, two prominent UK climate science deniersargued in The Wall Street Journal that the pandemic had “dramatically demonstrated the limits of scientific modelling to predict the future.”

Benny Peiser andAndrew Montford, the Director and Deputy Director of the UK’s principal climate science denial campaign group the**Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)**,  criticised policymakers for using academic research that was subject to a “lack of quality control.” “In normal times this doesn’t matter much, but it’s different when studies find their way into the policy world,” they wrote.

They did not mention that the GWPF’s own approach to ‘peer-review’, which undercover reporters in 2015 showed operated on the basis of sending reports to its members of its own advisory council. The model has been described by UK charity Sense About Science, whose Advisory Council included GWPF advisor Matt Ridley, as “a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.”

Eight days later, Breitbart’s Delingpole similarly criticised scientific modelling,dismissing research from the University of Washington forecasting more than150,000 deaths from the disease across the US as “operating in the realms of purest fantasy.” Whether on climate change or the pandemic, “we have no idea whether or not we can trust” scientific experts and their modelling, Delingpole argued[pix BB]

clark takes a similar view, telling DeSmog: “on both COVID-19 and climate change there are a lot of people who seem to favour the results of modelling over real-world observation.” Those who want action “will latch on to any model” that suits their ends, he claimed, and will “decide that is 'the science', that it is fact, beyond all challenge.”

Anarticle in Spiked likewise argued in April that “worst-case scenario thinking” and “doomsday forecasts” from models had clouded political judgement, referencing the obesity crisis, swine flu, and climate change.

This process of regularly casting doubt on models represents the “weaponisation of the scientific method,” says Imran Ahmed, founder of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. “Those sorts of sly tactics that have been used by these groups have amounted to an entire culture of how they spread information, spread ideas, and build audiences for their groups.”

“It’s expressed through philosophical strands which are anti-expert, faux-populist and conspiracies” and can include the “incel movement, climate denial, vaccine denial, identity-based hate,” he argues.

“As new facts emerge and as the understanding of the scientific movement changes,” says Ahmed, “these actors look back at previous consensuses and say, ‘see, they were lying back then.’”

Attacking environmentalists

As well as attacking coronavirus experts on their response recommendations, many commentators who oppose climate action also attacked those looking further ahead by putting forward proposals to ensure recovery plans were consistent with governments’ environmental pledges.

For months, commentators who regularly question the veracity of mainstream climate science denounced environmental activists for supposedly distracting the world with climate change amid the threat of pandemics.

On March 12, Telegraph columnistSherelle Jacobsargued that university funding should be redirected away from climate change research and towards “the scientifically uncontested problem of pandemics.” The day after, when the UK was effectively put under a national lockdown, Dutch climate science denial groupCLINTEL published anopen letter titled “Fight virus not carbon.”

Greenpeace,The Climate Group, and many other environmental organisations believe that the government should include environmental policies in coronavirus economic recovery measures to “build back better,” particularly as the country seeks to position itself as a climate leader ahead of hosting the UN climate talks in November 2021.

Some commentators spun this argument to imply that the environmental movement was happy that the virus has spread.

On March 22, former Top Gear presenterJeremy Clarksonclaimed in the Sunday Times that “greens just can’t stop smiling” because COVID-19 was “their idea of a wet dream.” Spiked contributor Ross Clark echoed this position in a response to DeSmog’s questions, saying that “there is a strand of opinion on the left which wants these crises — climate change and COVID — to be as big as possible because they see it as a way of undermining capitalism, and other aspects of our lives, and reforming society in their own dream vision.”

On March 25, a couple of days after Clarkson’s polemic appeared, Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill similarly argued that the pandemic was “a glimpse of the dystopia greens want us to live in.”

“The truth is that if the COVID-19 crisis has shown us anything, it is how awful it would be to live in the kind of world greens dream about. Right now, courtesy of a horrible new virus, our societies look not dissimilar to the kind of societies Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion, green parties and others have long been agitating for,” he wrote.

[pix] o’Neill reiterated this position when contacted by DeSmog, saying both the “green movement” and the reaction to COVID represented “privileged Westerners taking political decisions and actions” to the detriment of some of society’s most vulnerable. “Progressives should be questioning the impact of the reaction to COVID-19 on working people and poor people,” he said.

In June, 57 charitieswrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson asking him to put the creation of jobs in low-carbon sectors at the forefront of his economic recovery plans. They also asked the government to cancel the debts of developing countries struggling with both the impacts of the pandemic and the climate crisis.

Delingpole later wrote in acolumn for Breitbart saying environmentalists were celebrating the lockdown as a blueprint for a “new world order.” The GWPF took this argument one step further,publishing an image of a crying woman with the text, “net zero, like lockdown but permanent” — a reference to the UK government’s plans to slash the country’s emissions.

As these pieces were appearing, a Twitter account claiming to represent the climate protest group Extinction Rebellion (XR) in the East Midlandsposted an image of an XR-branded sticker on a lamppost with the words, “corona is the cure, humans are the disease.”

Official XR accounts were quick to condemn the tweet andsaid that they were not affiliated with the newly created account, which has since been deleted. But various outlets and commentators used the tweet to condemn the protest group.

Gaia Fawkes, the environmental section of political blog Guido Fawkes,suggested the post showed that XR was “in favour of extinction,” though it acknowledged coordinators of the organisation had “distanced themselves” from the supposed splinter group. A spokesperson for the site told DeSmog it stood by its reporting despite well-publicised doubts over the authenticity of the East Midlands organisation, stating it was “unaware of any publicly available list of ‘official’ [XR] groups at the time.”

The GWPF likewise claimed the Twitter account’s “anti-human sentiment” was “widely shared” among environmentalists,rejecting claims that the East Midlands account was fake.

Author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot suggests that while it is predominantly money that is behind climate science denial or tobacco industry lobbying, “with COVID-19, the motive definitely varies,” but the outcome is essentially the same.

“There are a lot of very well-paid people who are very professional and they’re using the expertise that they’ve gathered in other areas of dispute about scientific facts and the policies arising from them, and applying those directly to the pandemic,” he argues.

“Take their power seriously, but don’t take any of their arguments at face value,” Monbiot concludes. “It’s not worth trying to deconstruct the nonsense they come out with.”

Political impact

Unlike in theEU referendum or Trump’s presidential campaign, pushing anti-expert rhetoric may no longer be a winning strategy in the wake of COVID-19. Polling shows that despite worry about the pandemic and its impacts, the public still wants governments totackle climate change. And politicians attaching themselves to the anti-science bandwagon are now struggling in the polls.

For the Centre for Countering Digital Hate’s Ahmed, attacking the concept of expertise around COVID-19 is “the first truly great strategic mistake by those who espouse this radical world view.”

The US and UK are two of the countries hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and both have leaders “who have been denying evidence and fact,” says Lewandowsky. “Johnson and Trump are creating a situation in which the very thought that we could establish a common truth is under attack,” he says. Both are regularly backed by commentators who also openly question the concept of expertise, whether on climate change or coronavirus.

But these positions have begun to hurt both leaders. Johnson has plummeted from a position of public popularity prior to the UK’s lockdown to anegative approval rating almost four months later. And the gap between the majority of Americans who disapprove of Trump’s leadership and those keeping faith with the president now sits ataround 15 percent, numbers that could see him lose November’s election.

That may reflect a wider shift in the public mindset, Lewandowsky argues: “My hope is that the COVID crisis has kind of given us a reset here, and there’s some evidence that people are beginning to say that we do need experts and data.”

==

==

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/endocrine-disruptors-scare-james-delingpole/

2x? 12/13

The background: As the manufactured global-warming “crisis” runs out of steam, the environmental movement is experiencing severe donor fatigue, so the greenies have begun seeking out new theaters in which to continue their campaign to bring about the end of Western industrial civilization. The latest target is agriculture. This campaign is big and well coordinated. Around 500 activist organizations in the U.S. will in 2014 be spending up to $5 billion targeting the agriculture industry, with potentially devastating effect on the American economy

Below we tell the story of one strand of this campaign: how a kooky Mother Jones–feted young professor from UC Berkeley used bogus science and a plausible, engaging manner to help destroy an industry worth billions.

His name is Tyrone Hayes, poster child for the chemophobicLeft, Erin Brockovich with a Ph.D. He’s at the forefront of the pseudoscience of “endocrine-disruptor theory” (as first popularized by the 1996 bookOur Stolen Future, with foreword by Al Gore), and the damage he has managed to do is immense.

Hayes has been hailed by the liberal media as a crusading hero thanks to his “discovery” in the late Nineties that even small doses of Atrazine (the second most commonly used herbicide in the U.S.) are capable of causing frogs to change sex.

Problem is, studies that have attempted to replicate Hayes’s findings — one in Japan, one in Germany, and one in Maryland (the last two involving 2,000 frogs) — found no harmful effects even at extremely low doses. Hayes has consistently refused to make his data publicly available and painted himself as a victim of the brutal chemical industry. (Shades of Michael Mann and his multiply discredited Hockey Stick, anyone?)

But who is the real bully here? Hayes’s unverified claims have cost atrazine’s Swiss manufacturer, Syngenta, millions of dollars (because of the various safety trials it has been forced to conduct, at its own expense, by the Environmental Protection Agency). What’s more, Hayes has sent Syngenta’s employees a string of abusive and threatening messages, written in rap style and peppered with expletives.

In a world where the scientific method was still properly valued, Hayes would have been discredited long ago. Yet because Hayes is on the “right” side of the argument, he has continued to enjoy the support of the liberal media (the New York Timesas well asMother Jones), of academe, and of the coterie of activist scientists pushing endocrine-disruptor theory.

Though Hayes continues to enjoy tenure at Berkeley, he claims his research program has been cut out of a “desire to protect a $25 million, five-year research agreement between Berkeley and Novartis, a parent company of Syngenta.” Elsewhere he has gone so far as to suggest that Syngenta and Novartis are engaged in an evil, symbiotic relationship whereby one poisons the water supply with a cancer-causing herbicide and the other manufactures drugs that cure cancer.

None of these claims stands up. Syngenta has been entirely independent of Novartis since 2000. That five-year research grant expired as long ago as 2004.And the idea that atrazine poses any risk to human health has been rebutted in an astonishing 7,000 scientific studies around the world, which have examined — and rejected — its potential to cause everything from birth defects and genetic mutations to cancer.The Environmental Protection Agency concurs, finding that atrazine poses “no harm” to the “general U.S. population, infants, children, or other major identifiable subgroups of children.”

It is an unfortunate measure of the persuasive power of voodooscience, the precautionary principle, and environmental activism that not all regulatory bodies have been quite so robust as the EPA. After years of campaigning by activists such as Hayes, both the United Nations and the EU have now embraced endocrine-disruptor theory.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization issued a joint report earlier this year on the potential health risks of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The European Commission, meanwhile, is finalizing laws that could mandate a Europe-wide ban not only on pesticides but also on fruits, vegetables, and grains bearing even the tiniest trace of alleged endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

This has infuriated and appalled the genuine experts in the field. The editors of eight leading scientific journals specializing in chemical hazards recently signed a joint editorial attacking the Commission’s decision. They accused it of acting “contrary not only to science but to the very principles of enlightened governance and social contract.” Meanwhile, 73 leading scientists have written an open letter protesting that the rules “could rewrite well-accepted scientific and regulatory principles . . . without scientific evidence.” As John Block, former secretary of agriculture to Ronald Reagan, has argued, “Bad science could kill the global trade talks.”

It could do serious damage to American agriculture-commodity exports, too, 40 percent of which would be affected by the new regulations — at a cost to the American economy of $4 billion.

To those of us wearily familiar with the ways of the environmental movement, however, this regulatory assault on the capitalist system— justified by the flimsiest of scientific evidence — will come as no surprise whatsoever.

From anthropogenic global warming to biodiversity to species loss to pesticides and GMOs, the story is the same: The scientific method is being abandoned and the practice of peer review has been grotesquely corrupted, all to advance the dubious causes of environmental activists.

Endocrine-disruptor theory shows all the signs of being yet another pseudoscience pushed by the unscrupulous, championed by the overzealous, and accepted by the credulous in an ongoing campaign that will probably do nothing to save the planet but will most certainly cause enormous harm to Western industrial civilization.

— James Delingpole is a blogger, author, and scourge of junk-science environmentalist doommongers. His latest book, The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism, has just been published by Regnery.

==

SEE CLIMATEGATE amplify ecsalator eg NRO

2X

http://www.esquire.com/features/marc-morano-0410

This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax

Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry's presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. Somehow, he seems to be winning.

By John H. Richardson

Marc Morano

Mackenzie Stroh

Early on the morning of November 17, Gavin Schmidt sat down at his computer and entered his password. It didn't work. Strange, he thought. He tried a few other accounts and none of them worked, either. Now he was alarmed. As a leading climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Institute in Manhattan, he’d been hacked before. He was used to e-mails from people who disapproved of his work, threatening e-mails that detailed the romantic life he was going to have in prison. So he knew what to do: He logged in via the Unix shell command.

A second later, the computer logged him off — and locked him out. Someone was in there, fighting him in real time. Schmidt sent an emergency message to his Web server:

"WE ARE BEING HACKED RIGHT NOW."

When they started the system up again, hours later, Schmidt found a forged Web page and a link to a file holding thousands of what looked like private e-mails written by some leading climatologists who study global warming. In addition to being a massive theft, it was a dark joke. Because the Goddard Institute is the professional home of James Hansen, the scientist famous for first sounding the alarm on rising temperatures back in 1988, and these particular e-mails had been compiled as part of a bitter Freedom of Information fight launched by contrarians who insist that global warming is a hoax, the hacker was posting the e-mails as a malicious tweak. He came in via a misconfigured proxy server in Turkey that was on a list of the proxy servers people use if they want to hide their tracks.[C8 CARSON WIKI?]

But the hacker had moved on. He'd been working on this for weeks, maybe longer, risking prison on charges of industrial espionage. A few hours later, he posted this note on a blog called The Air Vent:

"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release arandom selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

"This is a limited time offer, download now."

Two days later, Marc Morano is riding up the Pacific Coast Highway in the back of a rental car, a big cheerful guy with five o'clock shadow that makes him look like Barney Rubble.He was eleven when his older brother got him a job on the Reagan campaign placing [BUYING TIME FOR ADS?] sound bites with radio stations, which eventually led to a job with Rush Limbaugh and three years as communications director for Senator James Inhofe, where he made the words Global warming is a hoaxworld famous. Now he's forty-one and he's enjoying the downtime between political speeches, catching glimpses of the California ocean — on these lecture tours, he just runs and runs and runs until all he wants is a quiet place to drink a beer and smoke a cigar.

But a call comes in from Anthony Watts, a retired TV weatherman who runs one of the leading contrarian blogs, and he has astonishing news about some e-mails from theClimate Research Unitat the University of East Anglia in England. There's explosive stuff there — in one, a scientist actually rejoices over a contrarian's death. How's that for scientific detachment? Another says he's using a trick to "hide the decline" in temperature. A trick!

It's exactly what the contrarians have been saying for years. The leading global-warming scientists are scamming the world. Billions of dollars in green energy and CO₂ restrictions and it all comes down to their reputations and their grant money.

So Watts is posting a note on his Web site: "The details on this are still sketchy, we'll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown..."

"Many many" files is right. There are thousands of them, nearly a million words total. Fortunately, the hacker took the time to draw up an annotated list. Watts is posting some of the juiciest.

The timing is perfect. The United Nations climate conference starts in Copenhagen in three weeks. The activists are pushing for a 40 percent cut in CO₂ emissions within ten years, a revolutionary number. The eyes of the world are open wide and suddenly here's this tremendous gift: Climate-gate, they'll call it. With any luck, it will be just like the story that put Morano on the map, the one he wrote in a hurry late on a Friday afternoon in the spring of 2004 that was supposed to be the beginning of a vacation. He was working at the time for the right-wing CNS News service, and hisboss wanted a pound of flesh before he left, as bosses do, so he made some calls and a contact suggested he call a guy named John O'Neill down in Texas. A few minutes later O'Neill was on the phone, sounding surprised. Yeah, he was leading a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, hundreds of them, all ready to declare that John Kerry was unfit to be commander in chief. Yeah, nineteen of them had actually served with Kerry. They even had his commanding officer, who said he'd had thorn pricks that were worse than some of Kerry's wounds.

Morano knew it was big. He stayed late, digging through clips and calling Kerry's office for comment. "You asked for a pound of flesh," he told his editor. "I may have given you several."

The story ran on Monday under the headline "KERRY UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF," SAY FORMER MILITARY COLLEAGUES, when Morano was down in North Carolina, at Nag's Head with his two baby girls. It blew up into international news, turning the Swift Boaters' press conference into a mob scene, the beginning of the end for Kerry, who simply didn't understand what he was up against. It didn't matter that the claims of the Swift Boaters would later be documented to be lavishly financed lies; the actual truth was a lumbering dinosaur in the face of a blitzkrieg. Morano followed it with stories like KERRY'S MEETING WITH COMMUNISTS VIOLATED U. S. LAW and FBI FILES SHOW KERRY MET WITH COMMUNISTS MORE THAN ONCE.

But that was when he still had some institutional support behind him. Now he's all alone in a hotel room with a laptop, a phone, and a BlackBerry, and his only weapon is a Web site called ClimateDepot.com.

Listen and learn, pilgrim. This is how the information wars are fought in the age of the Internet, when an isolated outside voice can swing the debate and change the world. The story starts with Hansen's congressional testimony back in '88: "The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." Within a few years, the fossil-fuel industry was fighting back with films like The Greening of Planet Earth, which said that more CO₂ would actually be good for farmers. Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it. Some of their criticisms were valid, like questioning the more extreme predictions for ocean-level rise or the dubious link to hurricanes, and they were certainly right to bring up the cost-benefit analysis of cap-and-trade.But as the science piled up, each bit of evidence more convincing than the last, more and more people were starting to believe that global warming was real.

The first turning point was 1997, when the nations of the world agreed to limit their CO₂ emissions at theKyoto Protocol. A year later, the American Petroleum Institute hired a conservative PR expert named Steve Milloy to develop a "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan." They had to tell a better story and tell it fast. They had to change the narrative. Milloy ran a Web site called Junk Science, joined in time by Climate Audit and Ice Cap and a thousand others, all hammering the same message — ignore global warming.There was even an evangelical-Christian faction, led by something called the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Then,in 2006, Al Gore killed them with An Inconvenient Truth. On one side you had a Nobel-prize-winning vice-president, the world's leading scientists, a Hollywood cheering section, and a growing public consensus. On the other, a handful of legitimate scientists and a small but noisy group of amateurs, ideologues, and cranks. At the peak of the consensus, 84 percent of Americans thought global warming was a threat. The only thing they agreed on more was the existence of God.

Then Morano got hired as the communications director for Jim Inhofe, the dyspeptic senator from Oklahoma. Setting to work, he began compiling so many inflammatory stories and documents on Inhofe's Web site, Newsweeksaid he was "more like a wire service than a spokesman." He began to use the Web in pugnacious new ways, like printing the e-mail addresses of reporters and scientists and inviting readers to pester them. All this made Inhofe's office the global center of the resistance, but it also infuriated people. "Morano is unquotable and uncitable," said one influential climate blog. "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up." Another investigated his e-mail list. A scientist threatened him with a libel suit. Eventually other Republicans started telling Inhofe to fire him — he was unprofessional, they said. He appealed to Inhofe's worst instincts.

Morano took those as compliments.

[Pix Morano Limbaugh]

Now he sits at the anonymous desk in his California hotel room and taps away on his Web site, which is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the right-wing billionaire who also financed the investigation into Bill Clinton's sex life. Morano starts searching and surfing, setting up Google alerts to aggregate stories to his in-box, grabbing scraps of information wherever he can find them, adding headlines and lining them up on his front page.

Click on the headline Real Files or Fakeand it takes you to a Web site called the Blackboard, where a blogger named Lucia mentions e-mails "between various bloggers and climate science illuminati" but isn't sure whether they're some sort of scam. May sully the reputations of a number of working scientistsleads to a story on Examiner.com New York by a writer named Thomas Fuller, who refuses to go into detail because the e-mails are private and would almost certainly "prove embarrassing to those concerned, especially if ... published in snippets and without context." If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to ignoreleads to a giddy post at the National Review Online: "The blue-dress moment may have arrived!"

Morano has fun with it too, using goofy illustrations like a cartoon hand hammering a nail into a coffin and a Scooby Doo villain getting his mask pulled off. People tell him this is too childish for a publication that affects global policy, but it's part of his vision for his Web site — climate entertainment, he calls it.

As the words leave his fingers and become electric ones and zeros in the information cloud, other people start responding. One of the first is James Delingpole of London's Daily Telegraph:"If you own any shares in alternative-energy companies I should start dumping them NOW." Morano's Google alerts pick up the new tidbit and he slaps on another headline and adds it to his Web page. Then other people pick up his stuff and he writes about that and someone else writes about that until it's all swirling around like a digital dust devil in a Michael Crichton novel. Soon Morano's caution begins to fade: [note iterativeamplify feedback amplify]

If they are real and not fake, he writes, this is absolute dynamite, and will destroy the credibility of the alarmist cause.

Physicist on alleged behavior of CRU scientists: "These people should be put in jail as soon as possible."

A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.....

==

==

Delingpole: From Hitler and Stalin to Greta Thunberg — Time Loves to Celebrate Totalitarian Icons

==

ref mma

A professor who was caught agreeing to hide the oil funding behind a climate denial research paper named Breitbart News as a media outlet that could "likely help" publicize the research, according to emails unearthed as part of an undercover investigation by Greenpeace. Indeed, Breitbart News has frequently cited Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer to promote the supposed "benefits" of climate-warming carbon pollution and argue against a "war on CO2" --  including just days before the Greenpeace investigation was released. And now that Greenpeace has exposed Happer's ethically dubious actions, Breitbart News is defending Happer's behavior as "morally and scientifically unimpeachable."

On December 8, Greenpeace released the results of its investigation, in which Greenpeace UK reporters claiming to represent oil and coal companies asked two university professors to write industry-friendly research papers, and the professors agreed to do so without disclosing the fossil fuel funding behind them. According to Greenpeace, the investigation details "how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies' commercial interests." 

As part of its report about the investigation, titled "Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding," Greenpeace released a series of emails between its undercover staffers and the two academics, William Happer and Penn State Emeritus Professor Frank Clemente. In an email exchange in early November, a Greenpeace employee who was posing as an oil company consultant based in Beirut asked Happer if he could write a briefing paper "examin[ing] the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies," and if there were any "US outlets or contacts you may have" that could help "get this research out far and wide." The Greenpeace employee also mentioned a London Timescolumn praising carbon emissions by Matt Ridley, who Happer said was in "close touch" with a pro-carbon group called the CO2 Coalition that Happer helped organize. The Greenpeace employee then asked Happer if Ridley -- a Timescolumnist who also frequently writes op-eds published by The Wall Street Journal-- "would help to disseminate our research." Happer replied: "I am sure Matt Ridley will be interested in whatever you produce. The Breitbart news organization would also likely help, as would various blogs, syndicated columnists, etc."

Given Breitbart News' past coverage of Happer, it should come as no surprise that he mentioned Breitbart when asked to name media outlets that would promote his industry-funded, climate-denying research. For instance:

• A June 3, 2015 Breitbart article touted a letter from Happer and two other physicists attacking the American Physical Society (APS) for a statement recognizing the reality of man-made climate change.
• A January 22, 2015 Breitbart article purporting to list off "Ten reasons why the war on CO2 has done far more harm than good" approvingly quoted Happer referring to "the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide."
• An October 24, 2014 Breitbart article quoted "climate expert" Happer as saying: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."
• A September 2, 2011 Breitbart article quoted Happer as follows: "Disagreeing with [the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad."

On December 4, several weeks after Happer mentioned Breitbart News in his email to Greenpeace (and just days before Greenpeace released the results of its investigation), Breitbart News published yet another article touting Happer, this one titled "Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy." In it, Breitbart's John Hayward wrote a highly sympathetic profile of Happer's climate science denial, asserting that a white paper Happer co-authored was "meant to be a conversation-starter" and took "a non-confrontational approach with copious footnotes and supporting sources, inviting readers to perform their own research and gain a fuller understanding of CO2 and its benefits." Hayward also stated that Happer "lamented the vicious treatment given to scientists who showed even modest skepticism toward the link between CO2 and climate change."

After Greenpeace released its investigation, Breitbart News' James Delingpole rushed to Happer's defense with a December 8 article, in which he wrote: "What's clear is that [at] every stage Happer's behaviour was morally and scientifically unimpeachable." Delingpole alleged that Happer was not at fault because he made clear he "would only say in his paper what he believed anyway" and indicated that he did not "wish to benefit personally from the fee, but preferred that the money should go to a tax-exempt educational charity, which pays only his travel expenses."

It's true that Happer has a long track record of advocating for the purported "benefits" of carbon pollution, and it's also true that he requested in his emails to the undercover Greenpeace employee that "whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition" -- the group Happer helped organized earlier this year. But Delingpole tellingly did not provide Happer's answer to two other questions Delingpole noted that Greenpeace had raised:  "Would the CO2 Coalition be happy to take a direct donation on condition the donor remained anonymous?" and  "Might Happer be able to get his paper peer-reviewed by sympathetic authors?"

This is where Happer's conduct is far from "unimpeachable," as Breitbart News claimed.

The Greenpeace staffer posing as a representative of the Middle Eastern oil company told Happer over email that "we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous," and asked Happer whether "the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders." Happer replied that he believed the CO2 Coalition isn't "required to make public any donors, although it is required to disclose them to the Internal Revenue Service." He also forwarded the question to William O'Keefe, another member of the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition and former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute. O'Keefe replied by suggesting that the oil company funnel the funds through the Donors Trust, which has been dubbed the "dark-money ATM" of the conservative movement:

We are under no obligation to identify donors, except to the IRS but I think that is just organizations. When people ask the IRS or a firms 990 [sic], the donor list is redacted. If the person participates in the Donors Trust, he/she can make the donation through that and have complete confidentiality.

Happer then forwarded O'Keefe's response to the undercover Greenpeace employee. As Greenpeace noted, in his emails "Happer also disclosed that [coal giant] Peabody Energy paid $8,000 in return for his testimony in a crucial Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition."

The exchange between Happer and the undercover Greenpeace staffer exemplifies how the fossil fuel industry's funding of shoddy science can be hidden from public view, and how this strategy can apply not just to the research papers themselves but also to op-eds and other media coverage about them. Indeed, the other university professor that Greenpeace approached, Penn State's Frank Clemente, listed over email a series of op-eds he had written that had been published in newspapers across the United States, and then observed: "Note that in none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar."

The other serious issue raised in Happer's emails relates to peer review, the process by which scholarly work is checked by a group of experts in the same field prior to publication. As Greenpeace documented, in his emails Happer "laid out details of anunofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal." Specifically, Happer wrote that if he submitted the research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, it might "no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly your client would also like." Instead, Happer proposed a review process that would not be anonymous and would be conducted by the climate-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation, writing that although "purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review ... I think it would be fine to call it a peer review."

The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently conducted a similar review of another pro-carbon pollution paper, with Ridley -- who used to be a regular columnist for The Wall Street Journal -- deceptively alleging in the London*Times* that the paper had been "thoroughly peer reviewed."

==

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/10/11/climate-science-deniers-respond-ipcc-report-anger-fear-and-distortion

mike s

big UN report arrived on Monday, saying in no uncertain terms that the world has up to two decades to massively cut emissions by transforming the global economy if we want to avoid terrible climate impacts.

Given the implications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) findings — government intervention, progressive social policies, more international aid — it’s perhaps not surprising that those who deny climate change is real or a problem pushed back. It took a few days, but the climate science deniers’ response to the IPCC report is now in full flow.

What we see is three distinct layers of climate science denial at play here:

There’s the ‘this isn’t happening’ sun-spot brigade. There’s the ‘this is happening but it’s all a Communist ruse’ zealots. And then there’s the team who reluctantly admit they’ve lost the debate but shoehorn in a number of caveats and excuses to justify why nothing should happen.

‘This isn’t happening’

Over at Steve Bannon's alt-right hate machine Breibart, James Delingpole calls the IPCC report: “wailing hysteria and worryingly eco-fascistic policy prescriptions”.

Quoting Benny Peiser of the oft-debunked Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), he claims that the climate breakdown “hasn’t been supported by real-world evidence”.

Delingpole draws on an old friend, author Rupert Darwall, to claim that “science” is really just a pretext, devised by “ideological Euro Greenies, to destroy the fossil fuel hegemony of countries like the U.S. and to impose on them a new, eurocentric, renewable energy global tyranny.”

Now in full flow, Delingpole mocks reporting (such as ours) that points to the egregious media coverage in the UK, which favoured Strictly Come Dancing over ecological crisis. He asks, could it be that within the media universe “a few vestiges of the old standards still prevail? That maybe some editors still recognise a complete non-story when they see one?”

The BBC's editors decided it was a story, but had a slightly odd approach to covering it.

As DeSmog UK pointed out, Newsnight chose to invite on US climate science denier Myron Ebell.

Ebell is the former head of President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team and a Director of the libertarian US think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

His appearance has been heavily slated. Environmental writer Mark Lynas described the interview as “utterly pointless and embarrassing. Car-crash television, and a waste of time that could have been used addressing the real questions.”

“If you want political analysis, ask a policy analyst. If you want propaganda, ask Myron Ebell,” said Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at University College London.

Not to be denied their place in the sun, LBC radio got in on the action, giving a platform to GWPF-founder Lord Nigel Lawson to spout his stock in trade — that all this talk of climate action is just “PC claptrap”.

Not content with giving Nigel Lawson a platform, LBC doubled up by bringing Piers Corbyn on to deny not just climate breakdown — “I'll challenge the IPCC and the professor just speaking, there is no scientific paper in existence that shows that increases of carbon dioxide worldwide drive world temperature rises” — but that coral reefs were under threat.

The IPCC's report compiled evidence from more than 6,000 papers. It said 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs would be lost with 1.5C of warming, and almost all with 2C of warming.

‘It’s all a ruse’

Over at Conservative Woman — which regularly runs pieces by Conservative non-woman and GWPF researcher Harry Wilkinson — a headline runs “Top scientist shoots the climate-change alarmists down in flames”. In that article, Wilkinson quotes American climate science denier Richard Lindzen,who the GWPF contrived to give its annual lecture on the day the IPCC report was released.

In an extraordinary talk, Lindzen equates the climate consensus with “the suicide of industrial society”. His talk is a homage to oil and coal arguing: “the power these people desperately seek includes the power to roll back the status and welfare that the ordinary person has acquired and continues to acquire through the fossil fuel generated industrial revolution and return them to their presumably more appropriate status as serfs.”

Lindzen has form. Back in 2017 writing at Merion West, Lindzen argued that believing climate change is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide is “pretty close to believing in magic.”

In 2015 The Daily Mail reported Lindzen compared people believing in global warming to religious fanatics: “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.”

The Spectator would seem to agree. Its beleaguered editor Fraser Nelson tweeted a sneering comment in support of Ross Clark’s article, in which he states:

“It isn’t hard to spot the problem with issuing frightening-sounding deadlines. If the deadlines come and go, without us managing to lower emissions and yet still life goes on, it makes the people setting the deadlines look rather foolish.”

“It is also somewhat counter-productive. Given the failure of the world to come to an end, it is tempting to say, just as we do when religious cults and other fantasists make doom-laden predictions which fail to come to pass: well, the whole thing must be a hoax. What is the point of listening any further?”

Clark has a long history of climate denial. Back in 2015 he wrote in the Express the sort of paean to fossil fuel capitalism that Richard Lindzen would have been proud of:

“Climate change is not the greatest risk to the world: the biggest danger we face is the economic decline which would result from the loss of the cheap energy which has improved lives beyond all recognition over the past two centuries.”

“You name it: better food, better transport, better medical care. Ultimately, all the fantastic improvements in our lives since 1800 have been down to one thing: our ability to harness energy from fossil fuels.”

In summary: Everything’s getting better forever and ever. Except the IPCC report tells us that's very much not the case, unless we take radical action.

Which is perhaps why, in a second Breitbart article, Delingpole took aim at the organisations charged with implementing this ‘green tyranny’ that would see a move away from fossil fuels — specifically the Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) Chief Executive, Chris Stark.

He’s a man full of “revolutionary fervour” for cutting the UK’s emissions and helping the world avoid terrible climate impacts, Delingpole (sort of) writes. “If this doesn’t chill you to the marrow, it should”, apparently.

He’s not the only one that’s scared the CCC might now become empowered. Nick Timothy, a former SPAD for Theresa May who is credited with getting the UK’s Department of Climate Change shut down, urges Telegraph readers to “take back control” from “unaccountable entities” such as the CCC.

And entities such as the Nobel committee, perhaps.

Bjorn Lomborg over at the Wall St Journal took the opportunity to distort the work of just-announced Nobel Prize winner, climate economist, William Nordhaus. Lomborg claims Nordhaus said that “proposed cost of CO2 cuts aren't worth it”.

But as Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans points out on Twitter, Nordhaus literally wrote in one of his many, many papers on the economic rationale for climate action:

“The future is uncertain so we should have more climate policy, not less.”

As Evans points out, the entire framing used by Lomborg is just wrong:  [twits]

In one sense the new ideological discomfort of the shrinking climate denial network is understandable. As the IPCC reports outlines, mass systemic change is required -  a systemic change that is incompatible with the economic system the climate science deniers revere.

‘It’s happening, but…’

The Daily Mail - a bastion of climate science denial under former editor Paul Dacre - started uncharacteristically promisingly with Peter Oborne’s excellent report from Bangladesh, which seems to be based on actual facts and actual reporting and firmly grounded in reality.

But then on Wednesday they had Stephen Glover veer from acknowledging the level of crisis, to arguing that it’s all just too expensive so nothing should be done. He writes:

“This week’s IPCC report judged that global warming must be kept to a maximum of 1.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels, rather than the 2C ceiling previously envisaged. How can scientists be so sure that the lower figure should become the new goal?

“I ask because it carries enormous extra costs. The IPCC estimates that new energy infrastructure — wind, solar and electricity storage — as well as technologies that can capture CO2 from the atmosphere, could cost a jaw dropping £1,800 billion.”

“This will be paid for by the likes of you and me.”  He’s not the only one that acknowledges climate change is a problem but isn’t really willing to countenance the solutions.

Rod Liddle in The Sun takes aim first at vegetarians, then at windfarms.

Of the IPCC’s suggestion that we’re going to have to eat a lot less meat, he says: “Climate change is a fact. But when they conflate two issues for reasons of fashion, I begin to smell a rat”.

So Rod isn’t going veggie. But what of another IPCC finding, that the world is going to need a heck of a lot more windfarms? No. He doesn’t fancy that either:

“Wind turbines are a blight on our landscape”, he says, “causing misery wherever they are”.

That's all pretty normal messaging for newspapers known for objecting to climate policy. But what’s new about the latest spate of climate science denial is its politics.

Having overwhelmingly lost the scientific debate, these groups are now pivoting to a new position which is centred around two ideas: first that the new is too apocalyptic and second that it’s too expensive.

Given what is required is systemic change, they are swiftly changing positions to defend the indefensible — an economic system based on extraction and exploitation of natural resources and mass consumerism that the IPCC tells us must be in its end-phase.

But it’s not all bad…

Amongst the torrent of climate science denial from the usual suspects, there are also a few shoots of refreshing reality appearing.  For instance, the normally obstinate Times runs an editorial that breaks with their own columnist Matt Ridley’s vehement do-nothingery and points to the IPCC report to make his stance look absurd:

“The IPCC report’s authors warn that cutting emissions fast enough to keep the planet sufficiently cool could mean a $2.5 trillion hit to global GDP. Others estimate that switching to electric cars will create new industries worth $7 trillion a year in the US alone. It is true that a revolution will be necessary, but it should be bloodless and it will be good for us. So bring it on.”

==

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/04/exclusive-global-sea-level-data-agency-hits-back-after-attacks-breitbart-and-climate-science-deniers

A British government-backed research project that coordinates data from tide gauges around the world has hit back at climate science deniers who wrongly accused their scientists of faking findings.

The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, based in Liverpool, UK, at the National Oceanography Center, dismissed the claims made by two Australia-based scientists who both reject the well-established links between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and global warming.

The claims gained wider attention afterBreitbart’s James Delingpole, a climate science denier, screamed it was certain evidence PSMSL had been “caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.”

PSMSL said despite the claims, tide gauges and satellites showed that sea levels around the globe were rising and the rate of rise had increased in recent decades. Recent adjustments to the tide gauge data under scrutiny, in Yemen, had actually resulted in a decrease in the rate of sea level change, a spokesperson said.

The paper by Albert Parker and Cliff Ollier appeared in the new “open access” journal Earth Systems and Environment and claimed that data from a tide gauge in Aden, Yemen, did not show that sea levels there had risen.

As well as gaining attention from far right outlet Breitbart, the “research” was also covered uncritically by the UK’s MailOnline, which repeated the claim that PSMSL had made “arbitrary” adjustments to their data.

But senior scientists who are experts in sea level, and who spoke to Snopes and DeSmog, rubbished the claims, saying the study was flawed because the conclusions were unsupported by any methodology.

Unintelligible Research

Leading sea level scientist Dr. John Hunter told DeSmog the research was “close to being unintelligible.”

A spokersperson for PSMSL, at the National Oceanography Center, told DeSmog that MailOnline had approached them for comment, but published the story before scientists had a chance to respond. No other outlets contacted them to check.

The spokesperson wrote: “Any adjustment applied is never ‘arbitrary’ but is based on documentation of benchmark heights held by the PSMSL stretching back many years. An ongoing job of the PSMSL is to determine whether the adjustments made are correct, especially when new documentation becomes available or if there is a reanalysis of the existing documentation.”

PSMSL said the Aden, Yemen, gauge was assessed in 2008 and again in 2013 and this information was published on the PSMSL website.

“The 2013 reassessment resulted in a decrease (and not an increase) in the estimated 19th-20th century rate of sea level change at Aden,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that PSMSL was submitting a response to the journal.

“Global sea level is both rising and accelerating, and the data set compiled by PSMSL provides important input to this. This is detailed in the IPCC AR5 report chapters 3 and 13 … Specifically, PSMSL data inform us that sea level has risen by about 1-2 mm/year during the 20th century, and together with data from satellites, the rate over the last couple of decades has been over 3 mm/yr.”

Dr. John Hunter, a renowned expert on global sea level rise from the University of Tasmania, has analysed the Parker paper. He told DeSmog it was “hard to be sure what [Parker] has done” with the data because the paper, like others by the same author, were “close to being unintelligible.”

But he said the PSMSL broadly made two kinds of adjustments to data, which were “not arbitrary” but necessary.

One type of adjustment was to take the raw data and convert this to an average sea level height over a particular time period. A second was essentially a calibration exercise that matched the height of the zero mark on the tide gauge to a fixed point on the land.

Hunter said: “Broadly, PSMSL base the adjustments on whatever trustworthy information they have — if they don't have satisfactory information, then they don't convert that section of record from Metric to [Revised Local Reference data*]. They document what they do and why they do it.

“On the other hand, Parker's papers are often close to being unintelligible, so it is hard to be sure what he has done.

“Parker and Ollier (2017) appear to completely ignore the background information and instead fiddle around with the sea-level records only, matching break-points as best they can, using techniques which tend to yield adjusted records with virtually no trend.”

Hunter added that tide gauges and satellites all showed that sea levels were rising, and there was good understanding that this was being caused by thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

Who is Albert Parker?

Dr. Albert Parker is a mechanical engineer and former Fiat motor company researcher who, as reported by DeSmog, has also published papers under the name Alberto Boretti. He appears to have begun using the name Parker in about 2013 — around the time he took a role at RMIT University, which he has since left.

Boretti has refused to say why he uses two different names. Boretti and his sometime research partner Cliff Ollier, of University of Western Australia, are both listed as members of Principia Scientific International.

PSI is a fringe climate science denial group that publishes materials that deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Parker is prolific with his research and tends to target little-known and poorly regarded journals.

In early 2017, Parker and Ollier claimed that Australia had not warmed since the end of the 1800s, even though all temperature data shows a clear warming. The pair again argued that data, this time temperature readings, was being nefariously altered.

Journals Under Investigation

Parker and Ollier have co-authored several papers in a separate journal, Environmental Science: An Indian Journal, where the pair have also argued against human-caused climate change.

The publication Environmental Science: An Indian Journal is run by an organization called Trade Science Inc, which is owned by Indian “open access” publisher, OMICS.

OMICS is currently under investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for alleged deceptive practices. The FTC is questioning OMICS claims that its journals are properly peer-reviewed, and the agency alleges deceptive marketing practices. OMICS denies the allegations.

A brochure advertising the network of :{OMICS:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: trading names includes Trade Science Inc, and a contact address for Trade Science Inc is the same as OMICS International’s headquarters in Hyderabad.

Parker has had several university affiliations in recent years, including RMIT, the now defunct University of Ballarat, and James Cook University.  In his latest research he listed no academic affiliation.

In 2013, Parker wrote a paper with a fellow Australian, Thomas Watson, again arguing that sea levels were not rising.

Watson also thinks global warming is not caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, but instead says the Earth’s climate is controlled by “magnetism.”

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-study-deniers-2489397710.html

no link

Climate Deniers Twist Study in Attempt to Question Science

A study released last week suggesting that the world may have more time to keep warming under 1.5 degrees C than previously thought is being twisted by deniers to question scientific proceedings and accuracy.

Politico reported Monday morning that powerful deniers are focusing on misinterpretations of the study to support efforts to roll back climate policy and question climate science at large (as our own Denier Roundup predicted last week).

The study represents "exactly the type of debate discussion scientists need to be having," Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp told Politico. "This article proved that there can be a lot of debate about the fundamental issues."

The study's authors pushed back against denier misuse of their findings. In an op-ed in the Guardian last week, they wrote that "after reasonably accurate initial reporting, suddenly our paper was about a downgrading of the threat of climate change, when it was actually nothing of the kind.

"Debating the current level of human-induced warming and how it relates to the 1.5° C goal feels a bit like discussing how best to steer a spacecraft into orbit around Saturn while Delingpole [James, Breitbart] and Stringer [Graham, a Labour MP] are urging their readers to question whether the Earth goes round the Sun," they added.

For a deeper dive:

Politico, Ars Technica. Commentary: The Guardian, Myles Allen and Richard Millar op-ed

==

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/04/13/breitbart-james-delingpole-pushing-denial-great-barrier-reef-bleaching-again

This story was originally published byThe New Republicand is reproduced here as part of theClimate Deskcollaboration.

It was known as the Great Pea Soup. In 1952, a thick, greenish-yellow fog smothered London, halting traffic and daily life. At the time, when households burned cheap coal for heat, factories spewed unregulated smoke, and buses burned diesel fuel, Londoners were used to a certain degree of greasy haze. But the Great Smog or Big Smoke, as this 1952 pea-souper was also known, was unprecedented. Bitterly cold air “soaked up the pollution and held it like a blanket over the city” for four days straight, according to the *Daily Mail*. Twelve thousand people died.

We now know that short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution can kill people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions.

Sixty-five years later, our scientific understanding of air pollution has advanced immeasurably. We now know—because of events like the Great Pea Soup, but also a groundbreaking 1993 Harvard University study of smog-ridden U.S. cities and countless research papers since then—that short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution can kill people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions. “The evidence is so large,” said C. Arden Pope, a professor at Brigham Young University world-renowned researcher of air pollution’s impacts on human health. “There are very few people conducting this research and publishing it in the peer-reviewed literature who don’t think fine particles pollution can lead to death.”

There are, indeed, very few people who believe air pollution—specifically “fine particulate” pollution, or PM2.5—doesn’t cause death. Those who do, however, are getting louder and gaining influence in conservative political circles and inside President Donald Trump’s administration. These air-pollution deniers have just one hope: the repeal of clean-air regulations that have long protected Americans’ health.

At last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), during a little-noticed panel on climate change and environmental regulation, air pollution denial was rampant and went unchallenged. Steve Milloy,formerly a paid flack for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries and member of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, argued that excessive air pollution is not linked to premature death. “My particular interest is air pollution,” Milloy said, alleging that EPA’s scientists are inherently biased. “These people validate and rubber-stamp the EPA’s conclusion that air pollution kills people.” Milloy also said, baselessly, that EPA scientists are “paying for the science it wants,” and that Trump must change the research process at the agency.

It is extensively proven, and widely accepted, that air pollution can harm humans, which is why the government regulates it. PM2.5 refers to tiny particles that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter—small enough to penetrate deep into the circulatory system and potentially infiltrate the central nervous system. The particles range in composition, originating anywhere from cement dust to tobacco smoke to pollen. They are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act, a widely popular law passed in 1963 that has seen major amendments receiving unanimous or overwhelming support in the Senate. The CAA currently requires Congress to set what’s known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter.

“These people validate and rubber-stamp the EPA’s conclusion that air pollution kills people.”

Even Breitbart, the alt-right media organization with close ties to Trump, seems to accept that air pollution is bad for human health. It has published dozens of articles over the years—many from wire services, but some from its own contributors—that report, without opinion, about studies on the issue. “The chronic problem of pollution in China has been linked to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths,” Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart‘s Rome bureau chief, wrote in 2015. “The fine particles are believed to play a role in cardiovascular disease, lung problems, cancer, and emphysema.” Earlier this month, Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollack reported, “Air quality in some East Asian capitals is famously poor, with residents of Beijing taking extreme measures to avoid the health risks associated with heavy pollution.”

But Breitbart has also provided a platform for those leading the charge for air pollution denial. Last year, it published a column by Milloy titled, “How stupid is air pollution ‘science’?” And earlier this month, Breitbart columnist James Delingpole—who usually sticks to columns attacking climate science—joined the fray. In an article declaring that “The EPA’s Air Pollution Scare Is Just Another Fake News Myth,” Delingpole took issue with the most recent State of Global Air report, which found that air pollution contributed to 4.2 million deaths in 2015, because the study was partly funded by the EPA—while conveniently ignoring that it was also funded by 23 car companies and Exxon Mobil. Delingpole cited Milloy exclusively and extensively, linking to Milloy’s “fact sheet” on air pollution.

“Frankly, it’s full of stuff and nonsense,” said Janice Nolen, the assistant vice president of national policy at the American Lung Association, referring to Milloy’s fact sheet. “Particle pollution is one of the most researched topics in the scientific world, and has been reviewed extensively.”

There are pages of false claims in Milloy’s sheet, but a few are particularly egregious. He argues that two renowned air pollution studies that established the basic connection between PM2.5 and death—the aforementioned Harvard study and one by Pope, the BYU professor—have controversial methodologies that cannot be resolved because scientists refuse to make the raw data available. “For results to be considered to be scientifically credible, they must be capable of being independently replicated,” Milloy writes. This claim is the basis of a Republican-led bill currently being pushed through the House of Representatives.

“Particle pollution is one of the most researched topics in the scientific world, and has been reviewed extensively.”

There are several problems with this line of argument. The raw data Milloy seeks is private medical information on human subjects who were assured confidentiality when they participated in these studies. “There’s this issue if this data becomes public, will anyone be able to go and knock on these people’s doors?” said Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou, an environmental health professor at Columbia University. Long-term health data is also difficult to reproduce because the people who participated in the study have grown up; many likely have died. This is why, scientists say, many public health studies simply can’t be replicated. (The Harvard study, however, was successfully replicated in 2001 by the Health Effects Institute, which is funded by EPA, the motor vehicle industry, and the oil and gas industry. A similar reanalysis was published in 2005.)

Milloy and Delingpole also claim that “not one single” epidemiological or toxicological study has ever shown that particulate pollution directly caused a death, either in the short term or due to prolonged exposure. Kioumourtzoglou says this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientists classify cause of death. When people die, they are given an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code to signify what happened, and there is no ICD code for pollution. “If you died of a heart attack, you get the ICD code for a heart attack,” she said. “If exposure to PM2.5 has caused a heart attack, on your death certificate, it would still say heart attack, not PM2.5.”

Pope, whose study was one of the first to establish the connection between short-term exposure to fine particulate matter and death, also said Milloy’s claim misunderstands the type of person who dies from exposure. A perfectly healthy person is not going to croak from a short jog through haze. But people who are already unhealthy—who have asthma, or cardiovascular or heart disease—should be worried. “We often refer to it as triggering,” Pope said. “Particulates will trigger these acute events, such as heart attack.”

This is not to say that the research on this subject is flawless. Kioumourtzoglou, unlike Milloy, has lead and published studies on problems with the scientific methods surrounding the impact of particulate matter pollution on human health. Scientists cannot strap pollution monitors onto humans and follow them around for years at a time, so sometimes they rely on models that predict air pollution concentrations at certain locations and times. “We have to rely on less than perfect measurements,” she said. “And these are known to induce error.”

The error, however, is exactly the opposite of what Milloy claims. Kioumourtzoglou’s research has found that current air pollution measuring methods tend to understate the effects of air pollution. “In reality,” she said, “the effects are even worse than documented.”

The good news is, Milloy and Delingpole remain outliers in a sea of evidence. As ThinkProgress pointed out last month, “The Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, the American Lung Association, and the United Nations all link air pollution to increased risk of asthma, heart disease, and stroke. In 2013, the WHO even concluded that air pollution could be categorized as a human carcinogen.” Even Breitbart, as indicated above, has published uncritical articles about these organizations’ findings.

The bad news is, we already know that outliers can have disproportionate impact on policy.

The bad news is, we already know that outliers can have disproportionate impact on policy. Just look at the debate surrounding climate change. Despite near-consensus in the scientific community, one third of Congress are climate change deniers, as are Trump and his new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt. What’s more, they’re using their fact-free ideology to dismantle policies that slow climate change. Trump is expected to issue an executive order this week undoing the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from fossil fuel plants. He is also considering withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the landmark international accord to stop global warming.

Milloy and Delingpole surely would like air-pollution deniers to have a similar impact on national policy. Given Milloy’s closeness to Trump’s inner circle, and Breitbart‘s growing influence on the White House, and it doesn’t seem so far-fetched. But even if that doesn’t come to pass, these deniers have already succeeded in shaping—or rather, creating—a debate that no politician or scientist should rightly entertain. And that debate is now a public reality. Milloy’s “fact sheet,” for instance, is the first result in a Google search of “PM 2.5 science.” A legitimate scientific article is second.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16112016/steve-bannon-trump-white-house-climate-conspiracy

President-elect Donald Trump has famously called climate change a hoax invented by the Chinese, but the man he has chosen as his chief White House strategist advances a far more elaborate conspiracy.

Stephen Bannon has called government support of alternative energy "madness." His conservative website, Breitbart News, relentlessly pursues the idea that global warming is an invention of activists, university researchers and renewable energy industry profiteers determined to assert global governance for their own gain.

"Pure scum" is how Breitbart News describes the alleged schemers, and the site suggested that the Vatican had been taken over by Marxists after Pope Francis urged the world to protect the environment and slow climate change. Bannon has cited a faked TIME magazine cover, purportedly from the 1970s, as evidence that scientists once thought the world was cooling.

Global warming hoax theories are among a wide range of extremist views that were circulated on the pages of Breitbart News under its executive chairman, Bannon.

The site's at times overtly racist, anti-Semitic and sexist content has prompted many to protest Trump's selection of him for a key post, and one that does not require Senate confirmation. The outcry has come from civil rights advocates, top Democrats and even some Republicans. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate group activity, reported in Aprilthat there had been a noticeable shift at Breitbart to more overt anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and racist rhetoric, making it, in effect, "the media arm of the alt-right."

"Steve Bannon's appointment should make us very nervous," Sen. Bernie Sanders posted on Twitter. "We're going to tell him and Trump that we will stand together and not be divided up."

There's been less attention to Bannon's denial of climate change science, and the conspiratorial views on clean energy he has promoted via Breitbart. Advocacy against climate change action has been a key aim of a major financial backer of Breitbart, the reclusive hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. He reportedly playeda key role in installing Bannon at the top of the Trump's campaign in an August shake-up. Mercer, a major donor to the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations that deny climate change, was among the top campaign contributors of the 2016 election. He spent $23.5 million to help elect Trump and other Republican candidates.

With overheated rhetoric and mischaracterization of fact, Breitbart has repeatedly said climate change is a corrupt swindle that is damaging the economy.

"We could be energy independent," Bannon said in a radio interviewhe conducted for Breitbart's radio program on Sirius XM Patriot. "There is an American renaissance, and an industrial renaissance in front of us, if we can just get the government out of our way."

In the interview, which followed Trump's energy speech in May in North Dakota, Bannon was questioning Trump economic adviser, Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation, who had just published a book, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy. But the interview gave Bannon a chance to expound on his own views on energy policy and provides a window into the energy policy direction Bannon will push Trump to pursue in the White House.

Bannon, whose new job will involve developing strategy for working with Capitol Hill, is particularly harsh on Republicans in Congress. He criticizes them for agreeing to include support for renewable energy—"much of this nonsense"—in the omnibus budget bill passed at the end of 2015. (The legislation extended multi-year tax incentives for wind and solar generation as part of a deal that also lifted the 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports.)

"Whether you believe in alternative energy or not, one thing we can tell you for a fact—whether it works or not, that's all to be seen in the progress of time—it's up to its neck in crony capitalism," said Bannon. "The venture capital guys getting bailed out, the private equity guys getting bailed out, subsidies for these things.

"Why [have] the Republicans not had a more full-throated saying, 'No, we're just going to shut this stuff down. We don't care if the president vetoes it or not, but we're not going to fund this continual madness?'

"And by the way it is madness, at least according to your book, this alternative energy which really tries to compete with dollars for fossil fuel," Bannon said to Moore.

Moore countered by saying, "I'm not against renewable energy. I'm just against taxpayer subsidies."

In fact, worldwidesubsidies for fossil fuels are currently $493 billion, more than four times more than those for renewable energy, according to the International Energy Agency. In the United States, current direct budget subsidiesfor renewable energy are larger than those for fossil fuels, but oil, gas, and coal continue to receive $3.4 billion annually and benefit from decades of taxpayer subsidies, including those that led to an electric grid reliant on centralized, mainly fossil-fueled power.

In one attempt to quantify the subsidy advantage fossil fuels have enjoyed,DBL Investorsestimates that the cumulative value of federal subsidies for oil and gas have totaled $447 billion since 1918, compared to the $6 billion in subsidies for renewables since 1994.

Bannon introduced Moore, who is a Trump adviser, as "one of the great economic thinkers of our day." Moore's book, which urges allowing the energy to build the pipelines it wants to build, opening up public lands to drilling, and putting restraints on the Environmental Protection Agency, lays out "the case for what the country has to do," said Bannon. Moore argued EPA's regulations "are intentionally designed to shut down our domestic energy industry."  

Bannon also asked Moore to weigh in on what he called "the globalists" who designed the Paris treaty on climate change. "None of these countries are going to abide by the Paris accord, just like they didn't abide by the Kyoto treaty," said Moore. He added he did not believe in climate change, and remembered that in the 1970s, scientists thought the Earth was cooling.

"TIME magazine had the cover, 'The Next Ice Age,'" said Bannon, laughing. (In fact, a photoshopped TIME cover that has circulated widely on the Internet is a fake. The emerging consensus of atmospheric scientists in the 1970s was that increasing carbon dioxide did pose a warming risk, despite a nine-paragraph Newsweek storyin 1975 on some climatologists' calculation of a cooling trend. Scientific studies since then have shown that soot and aerosolswere responsible for cooling, and that greenhouse gas-driven warming has overwhelmed that trend.)

After Pope Francis issued his encyclical on climate change and the environment, "Laudato Si" last year, Breitbart broadcast on its Sirius XM radio program an interview with one of the world's most prominent climate deniers, Lord Christopher Monckton, headlined, "Climate Expert: Marxists, Global Warming Extremists Control Vatican."

After the Paris climate accord last December, Breitbart News criticized negotiators' design of the agreement to avoid the need for Senate ratification (The agreement, legally binding under international law, is based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992.) " ClimateChange Deal a Threat to U.S. Sovereignty," said the Breitbart headline.

Most coverage and commentary on climate change in Breitbart News is written by the chief of the web site's London operation,James Delingpole,a former columnist for The Daily Telegraph, whom Bannon described as one of the "real hell fighters in the Breitbart tradition" when he appointed him in 2014.  

At the start of this year, Delingpole wrote that global warming as an issue "is so totally over," because, among other things, "Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual." The piece ran right after the close of 2015, a year that NASA, NOAA, and the United Kingdom's Met Office agreed was the warmest on record.

Delingpole blames the concept of global warming on "activists and crony capitalists of the political system in order to advance the cause of global governance."

"They are pure scum," he wrote. "They have not a single redeeming quality and everything they do is worthless."

Delingpole has repeatedly called climate change "a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracyagainst the taxpayer,"based not on a government (taxpayer) spending figure, but a calculation quoted in Climate Change Business Journal, a market research newsletter, for the size of the clean energy industry.

He calls wind turbines "bird-slicing, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes."

After the election, Delingpole wrote that the only ones who won't benefitfrom Trump's fossil fuel-focused energy plans, are those in the "global warming industry" who, he repeats, are reaping a $1.5 trillion annual windfall. "It's really happening!" he wrote. "The Green Citadel is falling. And I don't know about you but I'm in no particular rush to take prisoners."

==

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/steve-bannon-trump-2094347523.html

Prresident-elect Trump's choice of Steve Bannon as his top aide signals that white supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump's White House," a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said about the former Goldman Sachs investment banker.

Even climate-denier Glenn Beck warned that Bannon "is a guy who wants to tear this system down and replace it with a new system. He is a frightening … no, he is a terrifying man. A terrifying man."

While Bannon hasn't specifically talked about his climate plans, he bragged to Mother Jones in July that his site had become "the platform for the alt-right." Well, this platform harbors a clear disgust for environmentalists and environmental policy.

Let's take a look at some of the anti-climate stories and sample quotes published by Breitbart writers.

1. "Trump's War on the Green Blob Will Make (Almost) All of Us Richer, Happier, and Freer" by James Delingpole

• Sample quote: "Once other countries see the effects of Trump's anti-renewables, pro-fossil-fuel revolution, they'll find it harder to justify to their electorates the massive costs of the lunatic green energy policy by which the West has been held to ransom these last few decades."

Trump—who believes climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese and literally said, "The wind kills all your birds" and solar is "not working so good"—has made no bones about his support of fossil fuels and vows to undo "all job-destroying Obama executive actions" such as the Clean Power Plan....

==

Richard Branson's Virgin Group Gives Platform to Climate Science Denier James Delingpole on Official Podcast

When is it OK to invite a known climate science denialist with extremist views onto your show – especially if that show happens to be part of the corporate outreach for one of the world’s most recognisable brands?

Well, firstly, you’d want to know something about climate change, or have an actual expert or two on hand. If that person has a record of being wrong, then it might also be a good idea to point out to your listeners that most of the statements by your guest could be wrong or confused. Read more here.

==

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/21/deniers-attack-nasa-scientist/

...

Sellers concluded that, rather than summiting Everest or traveling to exotic beaches, he wanted to spend his final days with loved ones and getting back to work. In his lifetime, Sellers accomplished a lot. He visited the International Space Station three times, walked in space six times and logged more than 600 hours in space. Currently, Sellers is managing a team of scientists doing research on Earth’s climate and weather patterns. Ultimately, he said he’s happy with how his life turned out and he’s hopeful for the planet’s future.

He wrote:

“As for me, I’ve no complaints. I’m very grateful for the experiences I’ve had on this planet. As an astronaut I spacewalked 220 miles above the Earth. Floating alongside the International Space Station, I watched hurricanes cartwheel across oceans, the Amazon snake its way to the sea through a brilliant green carpet of forest, and gigantic nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles along the Equator. From this God’s-eye-view, I saw how fragile and infinitely precious the Earth is. I’m hopeful for its future. And so, I’m going to work tomorrow.”

It was a very moving letter from a man facing a terminal illness, and yet, it took no time at all for climate deniers to lambaste Sellers, ThinkProgress reported. Breitbart, a conservative news outlet, completely misrepresented Sellers by running this piece: NASA Chief: Global Warming Is Real Because I Have Cancer.

“A senior scientist at NASA has announced in the New York Times that he has terminal cancer. This is sad,” Breitbart’s James Delingpolewrote. “What’s sadder, though, is that he has chosen to exploit his personal tragedy for the purposes of promoting climate change alarmism.”

Wow. Climate doubters are attacking dying astronaut, climate scientist. Just stunning. https://t.co/oM9hQ5Inwu

— seth borenstein (@borenbears) January 17, 2016

Delingpole wasn’t alone though. :{Marc Morano:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: of Climate Depot and Lubos Motl, two prominent climate deniers, also attacked Sellers.

Motl wrote on his blog:

“Sellers’ text is so unbelievably detached from ‘what you would expect to be important’ that I could imagine that it was—and who know, maybe even his disease was—masterminded by the climate alarmist sect in order to create a moral symbol. Maybe the true believers have gathered and picked a martyr who will strengthen the idea that the climate alarmists aren’t just a bunch of dishonest parasitic hypocritical crackpots and scum but that they also include many believers who are ready to place their totally irrational faith above their own lives.”

Ironically, Sellers said in his op-ed that 2015 “may also be seen in hindsight as the year of the Death of Denial. Globally speaking, most policy makers now trust the scientific evidence and predictions, even as they grapple with ways to respond to the problem,” he said. “And most Americans—70 percent, according to a recent Monmouth University poll—believe that the climate is changing. So perhaps now we can move on to the really hard part of this whole business.”

His words echo those of President Obama’s in his State of the Union address last week.

The president said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

==

==

6. Breitbart’s James Delingpole: NASA, NOAA Scientists Are “Talentless Low-Lives”

On November 30, Breitbart News’ James Delingpole wrote a post listing “twelve reasons why the Paris climate talks are a total waste.” One of the reasons Delingpole gave was that the “alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted,” citing NASA, NOAA, the Met Office, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as examples.

==

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/update-climate-skeptic-delingpole.php

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Delingpole

brendan iccc

Then I ran into James Delingpole, the one-time Telegraph Online journalist who spewed vitriol at climate scientists and their defenders. I was about to undergo the kind of nasty, bitter confrontation I wanted to avoid.

Delingpole went to Oxford University with the British Prime Minister David Cameron but his novels didn’t do brilliantly and he was never invited into London Society. Delingpole’s other claim to fame was being when Sir Paul Nurse, filming for the BBC, asked if he had read the abstract of any scientific papers (the short introduction which sets out the significance of the study). Delingpole, who claims to have found a remarkable global conspiracy to fake climate research, admitted he hadn’t. So I just asked James if he had read any abstracts since. “No”. I couldn’t quite believe it.

Delingpole has written off one of the most influential climate studies as “ludicrous, comedy” and claimed its author, Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University, has “little discernible talent”. But during our confrontation he confirmed he had never interviewed Mann, never read his book and never read any of his scientific papers. I was dumbfounded.

Delingpole was furious. He raged and spat and accused me of being a troll. He attacked my journalism, having not read any, and attacked my opinions, having not heard any. All of this was being filmed by two French filmmakers. I was shaking. More in anger than in sorrow. “Can I give you some friendly advice,” I said.

“I don’t want your friendly advice, Mr Montague”, he said.

“Why don’t you read the abstracts to three scientific papers. Then you won’t look like such a fool next time someone asks that question. It doesn’t take long.”

The argument fizzled out and we both went our separate ways, huffing. And then I felt sad for Delingpole. Why was he even at this conference? He could be at home with hisfamily, playing Scrabble. It seems he is driven by ambition, but had made it no further than the basement conference hall of a faded hotel in Vegas.

JAMES DELINGPOLE

28 Apr 2015640

VATICAN CITY – Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference today when a journalist asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon his views on climate sceptics.

Marc Morano, covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.

But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”

Morano, together with Christopher Monckton (one of the Heartland delegation) and your correspondent, only narrowly made it into the carefully stage-managed conference where – as known climate sceptics – they were apparently not welcome.

“Ah. So you made it in here?” said a somewhat surprised looking member of the Vatican press team to Morano, when he realised that he had bypassed the Vatican’s security and infiltrated the press pack who had come to cover the conference.

As luck would have it, a heaven-sent shower of torrential rain had created such chaos that security wasn’t as tight as it might have been.

However, the three sceptics (Morano, Monckton, Delingpole) were watched very carefully throughout the proceedings lest they attempt to ruffle the feathers of key speakers Ban Ki-Moon, left-wing economist Jeffrey Sachs and Cardinal Turkson, the Ghanaian priest who has been co-ordinating the Vatican’s position on “climate change.”

In the end, Secretary-General Ban did answer a similar question, albeit one expressed more delicately by a journalist from the Catholic media, when he was asked what his views were on those members of the Catholic community who had reservations about the Pope’s position on climate change.

Perhaps this was a response to Ban’s rather bold and very moot declaration that “Religion and science are united on the need for action on climate.”

“I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists,” said Ban, in reply to the question. “I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

Secretary-General Ban clearly didn’t need the help from the papal security. As he smoothly demonstrated – as later when he deftly swerved a question about “overpopulation” and whether his previously expressed views that Africa should keep its population down clashed with the Catholic doctrine on contraception – he’s more than capable of squishing inconvenient truths himself.

==

http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/James-Delingpole

==

desmog:

 Credentials

• Degree in English Literature.[1]

 Background

James Delingpole is an English columnist and anti-windfarm activist who formerly blogged for The Daily Telegraph, and occasionally writes for *The Spectator*. Delingpole describes himself as a “libertarian conservative” and climate change skeptic.

Delingpole has written several books including ***Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future***.

 He has his own website at www.jamesdelingpole.com.

He was awarded the 2010 Bastiat Prize for online journalism by the free-marketInternational Policy Network.

Stance on Climate Change

“There has been no global warming since 1998.” [2]

Key Quotes

“The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)” [3]

“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.” [4]

“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.”[5]

“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.”[11]

“I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like Christopher Booker and myself 'only' have arts degrees. But actually that's our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one.” [11]

Key Deeds

February 12, 2014

James Delingpole announced the end of his days blogging for The Daily Telegraph. In his final post, Farewell, Knights of Delingpole — and thank you trolls, Delingpole thanks his readers “for your technical expertise and advice (it prevented anyone ever noticing that I'm an English graduate and know NOTHING about science apart from, maybe, how to grow copper sulphate crystals).” 

April 7, 2013

James Delingpole published an article in The Telegraphtitled “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists.” The article opens with a photo of one of the Nuremberg trials with the caption “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann…” (as in George Monbiot, Tim Flannery, and Michael Mann) and a series of questions (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 crocodilesfor the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eyewateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?”

While Delingpole writes that his answer to all of these questions is no, he also says that “Hanging is far too good for such ineffable toerags” and that “Indeed, it would be nice to think one day that there would be a Climate Nuremberg.” He defends his statements by claiming that he is using the phrases “metaphorically.” [11]

Joe Romm at Thinkprogress suggeststhat the Telegraph should retract and apologize for Delingpole's article as it may violate the paper's own terms and conditions against “obscene, threatening, menacing, offensive, defamatory, [or] abusive” material. [12]

According to Romm,

“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.”

March 8, 2013

James Delingpole published an article in the Daily Mailthat describes the Met Officeas a “menace” and also claims that the office has “finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages: there is no evidence that 'global warming' is happening.”

Delingpole quotes the Global Warming Policy Foundation's“Academic Advisor,” David Whitehouse, who claims that the Met Office is “panicking” because “All the predictions they’ve been making about man-made global warming these past 20 years have started to come crashing about their ears.” [13]

The Met Office replied to Delingpole, and attempted to correct “a series of factual inaccuracies about the Met Office and its science” that Delingpole's article had included. According to the Met office, these inaccuracies include: [14:{]:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;letter-spacing:0.03em"):}:

• Mr Delingpole then inaccurately states that the Met Office has conceded ‘there is no evidence that 'global warming’ is happening'. We have not said this at any point.
• He also states that the Met Office was trying to defend a narrative that the “the past ten years have been the 'wettest decade ever'”. Again, this is not something the Met Office has ever said.
• Also he quotes David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation saying that the Met Office 'thinks weather forecasting is beneath it' and that 'climate change… brings in more money'.

A cursory glance at our annual report and accounts (pdf) would reveal weather forecasting represents the vast majority of the Met Office’s contractual work on behalf of the public.

December, 2012

The Australian Press Council (APC) upheld a complaint on numerous grounds against *The Australian* newspaper, which had published an article by Delingpole about wind farms. In the article, Delingpole quoted an anonymous sheep farmer as saying that the wind farm industry was “bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

After the APC had published its findings, Delingpole wrote a response, also published inThe Australian, where he said: “I stand by every word of the piece - especially the bit about pedophiles. I would concede that the analogy may be somewhat offensive to the pedophile community.” 

September, 2012

Delingpole issues a public appeal for people to donate money to the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right-wing free-market “think tank” which refuses to disclose its funders. The IPA has been at the forefront of pushing climate science misinformation in Australia since the late 1980s. Delingpole wrote how the IPA had paid for him to travel to Australia to promote his book.

June, 2011

Delingpole was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6). [5]

January 25, 2011

Delingpole was one of the subjects of a BBC Two presentation titled “Science Under Attack” where Nobel Prize winning Sir Paul Nurse examined why climate change and other scientific theories have had public trust eroded. [6]

He interviewed scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate. Delingpole complained about the editing of his interview with Nurse because it focused on parts of the interview where, according to *the Guardian*, “he looks like an idiot.”

This includes Delingpole's explanation of why he never reads peer-reviewed scientific literature because “It's not my job.” The program also focused on Delingpole's condemnation of the scientific consensus on global warming. [7]

May, 2010

Delingpole was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC4). His speech was titled “Climategate and the War against Man, Bear, Pig.”

Video is available here. The Heartland Institute also provides a transcript of his speechhere. [1]

June 22, 2010

Delingpole described an article on expert credibility in climate change, written by WilliamR.L. Anderegg and others and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as being “based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

Delingpole's article on the paper was titled “'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists.” [8]

November 20, 2009

James Delingpole has been credited with coining the term “Climategate” to describe what climate skeptics have put forward as a scientific conspiracy where the alleged that climate scientists manipulated climate data to supress data. The event rose out of a series of hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. [9]

Climate scientists were since exonerated of any wrongdoing after a series of investigation into the subject, but climate change skeptics continue to describe the event as proof of a conspiracy.[10]

 Affiliations

• **The Heartland Institute**— :{ICCC:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: speaker.

 Publications

Delingpole has published four political books, including: How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History, Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work, and 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy.

Delingpole is also the author of several novels including FinandThinly Disguised Autobiography.

 Resources

1. James Delingpole. “My Moment of Rock-Star Glory at a Climate Change Sceptics' Conference in America” (Policy Document), the Heartland Institute, May 27, 2010.
2. James Delingpole. “There has been no global warming since 1998,” The Telegraph, July 6, 2011.
3. “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?”, The Telegraph, November 20, 2009.
4. ,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”
5. “James Delingpole, :{ICCC:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.
6. “Science Under Attack,”BBC, February 19, 2011.
7. Tim Dowling. “:{TV:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: review: Horizon: Science Under Attack and Tool Academy,” The Guardian, January 25, 2011.
8. James Delingpole. “'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists,” The Telegraph, June 22, 2010.
9. Christopher Booker. “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” The Telegraph, November 28, 2009.
10. Justin Gillis. “Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data,” The New York Times, July 1, 2010.
11. “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists,” The Telegraph, April 7, 2013.
12. Joe Romm. “Denier Delingpole Wishes For 'Climate Nuremberg', Says 'Hanging Is Far Too Good' For Climate Scientists!”, ThinkProgress, April 7, 2013.
13. James Delingpole. “The crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office a menace,” The Daily Mail, January 10, 2013.
14. “Addressing the Daily Mail and James Delingpole's 'crazy climate change obsession' article,” Met Office News Blog, January 10, 2013.
15. “James Delingpole,” Wikipedia.
16. “James Delingpole,” SourceWatch.
17. “James Delingpole” (Profile), The Carbon Brief.
18. Andrew Neil. “Global warming: Andrew Pendleton and James Delingpole,” BBC News, July 3, 2012.

Tags:

global warming

climate change

desmogblog

global warming blog

denial industry

climate change denier

The Telegraph

global warming research

climate misinformation

James Delingpole

smogger

climate change skeptic

climate denialism

denial database

Agenda Media

agenda journalist

==

involved in lawsuit:

UEA vs James Delingpole

Denizen Barry Woods has a current essay at WUWT on this one.   The basics are this.  UEA made a complaint to the UK Press Complaints Commission regarding James Delingpole, a reporter for the Telegraph:

“In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.  They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews” – Press Complaints Commission

From their ruling:

In relation to the columnist’s description of Professor Jones as “FOI-breaching, email-deleting”, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”,and another email in which he had written

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”. – Press Complaints Commission ruling

Barry Woods’ analysis:

How many blog owners or other journalists without the backing of an experienced legal team and the Telegraph would have been able to take this case on?

The threat of, or taking legal action against critics of ‘climate science’ does appear to be on the rise, this is a concern as few bloggers have any means to defend themselves legally. If actions like this are not fought and won, all perhaps it would take is a lawyer’s letter from a complainant with deep pockets (like UEA) for the blog owner to have to make a difficult personal and financial decision.  Additionally, these actions may result in a form of self censorship with blogger and journalists not daring to comment.

I was completely unaware that this case was going on until I read about in James Delingpole’s latest blog post and it did make me think what I would have done if a lawyer’s letter found its way to my blog with a threat of legal action.  So hopefully now, before ‘climate scientists’ and politicians rush to the courts they will now think more carefully of the potential outcomes. If only because it may backfire on them and that they realise as he won the complaint, others in the media might pay more attention to the reason why he won the complaint.

The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”

kliencc

James Delingpole

Background

James Delingpole is a journalist writing for the Daily Telegraph, he is frequently described as far right.

Views on Climate Change

• In his writing and media appearances, Delingpole regularly expresses a viewpoint that man-made climate change is not as extensive as it is described in the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, and has linked mainstream scientific projections concerning climate change with "the atavistic impulse which leads generation after generation to believe it is the chosen one: the generation so special that it and it alone will be the one privileged to experience the end of the world; and the generation so egotistical that it imagines itself largely responsible for that imminent destruction".

• When Anderegg et al published their paper on expert credibility in climate change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Delingpole countered with the headline 'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists'^[1]

• Delingpole is keen on coining terms to advance his theories. He uses the term 'ManBearPig' to parody climate science. Whilst fellow Telegraph writer Christopher Booker credits Delingpole with coining the term 'climategate'.^[2]

• Delingpole is quick to claim imbalance is at work , sometimes going to great lengths to make the suggestion. Criticizing Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute Delingpole fulminates " He is as entitled to speak out on “Climate Change” as I – a mere Oxford Eng Lit grad blogger and hack – am. But note, pray, one key difference. If ever I am called to debate about climate change on the BBC or wherever I will always be introduced as a climate change “sceptic.” " Delingpole goes on to lament that Ward's superior qualifications and scientific background are "thus lending him an aura of dignity, neutrality and lofty expertise he simply doesn’t merit." ^[3] To his regular readers this may seem balanced but the fact is that no scientific institution of national standing now endorses Mr Delingpole's creed of scepticism of anthropogenic global warming.

Quotations

• "What I do very much object to is concerted campaigns by pressure groups." ^[4]
• "Shall we talk about Climategate?" In response to Sir Paul Nurse's explanaion of the meaning of scientific consensus ^[5]
• "I haven't got the time I haven't got the scientific expertise" Explaining to Sir Paul Nurse why it is not his job to read scientifc papers^[6]
• I am an interpreter of interpretations" ^[7]

Delingpole interviewed by RS President

References

1. ↑ "[1]"
2. ↑ [2]
3. ↑ "[3]"
4. ↑ "[4]"
5. ↑ "38 Seconds [5]"
6. ↑ "1 minute 30 secs[6]"
7. ↑ "1 minute 50 secs[7]"

External resources

[8]

UK’s leading climate sceptic admits he’s driven by “ideological war” [9]

Carbon Brief Profile http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/james-delingpole

External articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.