The Most Regressive Progressives

I don't know what's more hilarious ... the interview, or your commentary :)

Such a novel experience of listening to a recorded radio program for 15 minutes without the urge to throw something at my computer.

I've always enjoyed Delingpole's articles as he seems to be one of the view voices of sanity that appear in the MSM. Will order his book more to support the fight against CAGW rather than expecting to find any new information in it as anyone who follows, SDA, WUWT and climateAudit regularly is more knowledgeable about climate science than 99.9% of the worlds politicians.

Delingpole is quite right that the place we have to take this fight is to the "education" system. Right now those who have the misfortune of being in the public indoctrination system are being deprived of a science education and are leaving school as watermelon indoctrinated robots. It's time to end this outrage and getting the right people into school boards across the country should be the primary focus of people who want to end the totalitarian meme of CAGW forever.

Oops, proofreading skills taking a nosedive at this time of night and what I meant to say that Delingpole is on of the "few voices of sanity", not "view" as I mistyped. That was actually quite an interesting motor error from a neurologic viewpoint but will spare people my analysis.

Looking forward to the remaining three parts.

Isn't declaring that global warming theory is simply "false", on the basis of a radio interview between a self-described conservative libertarian host and a self-described libertarian conservative guest, both of whom are well-known sceptics of global warming yet neither of whom would describe themselves as experts in the science of climate change, just as doctrinaire and anti-scientific as all of those hard-line global warming true believers that they, and you, disdain and mock?

So what does that make you?

Davenport,

We here have been declaring the AGW theory false based on bad data handling, anti-scientific practises by the purveyors, discredited studies, discredited advocacy groups included in the IPCC report, AGW model (hypothesis) discredited by fact etc etc.

The light of hope we see here is that the message is getting out to those too lazy to check the lies put forward by the media.

Perhaps if you had something more than ad hominem attacks you could covince some here that your views are correct.

Davenport (Isn't declaring that global warming theory is simply "false", on the basis of a radio interview...just as doctrinaire and anti-scientific as all of those hard-line global warming true believers that they, and you, disdain and mock?)

Who on this blog or elsewhere has been convinced by just this one interview? Having followed the development of this issue for some years now, it is pretty clear that there are holes in the theory. It's not so much the theory that is the problem. Theories come and go. It's the fact that all sorts of self-interested groups are riding on its coat tails. If they would have their way, your life would be impacted in all sorts of ways, none of which would address any purported climate change issues. Kyoto would have allowed the most polluting countries to keep polluting--all the while putting countries such as Canada at a huge disadvantage. And any subsequent climate conferences appeared to be more about wealth redistribution and creating a carbon exchange system that is riddled with organized crime elements and has done nothing to reduce overall emissions. They just make it punitive to manufacture products in one place and export the problem somewhere else. It's about money, power, and cornering resources by groups who would want to micro-manage your life--everything from telling you what light bulbs to use to telling you where and how you can live.

I don't think anyone here objects to the sensible management of resources or dealing with pollution. What alarmed me was how the hype was directed at vulnerable people--naive people who wanted to "save the planet" but had no clue what that was about. When it came to carbon credit trading, carbon taxes, granting immense power to the IPCC and the UN, I began to question the motives and the so-called science of the climate "experts". There were enough red flags to suggest that a skeptical attitude was the only one that made any sense. IF someone suggests we should pay to install better scrubbers on Nanticoke, I would agree. It makes sense to improve public transit in congested areas such as Toronto to reduce the number of cars on the road. But if someone says I should contribute umpteen dollars to purchase carbon indulgences from the likes of Mugabe, I will resist.

To conclude, no-one would base their opinion on just one interview--as you suggest. Just as I hope no-one would conclude that the world will turn into a giant frying pan just from watching An Inconvenient Truth.

The AGW theory is as scientifically ludicrous as the political opportunists in the Enviro Grifter's industry are dishonest.

Environmentalism isn't about the environment, its about political power, about money, about the ability to direct the efforts of others.

Global Warming is, or more accurately, was the most recent in a long series of "ACKKKKK We're All Gonna Die" hairy scary schemes invented by the Enviro Grifters.

Silent Spring
Population Bomb
Global Cooling
Club of Rome
Global Warming

Next up . . . whatever they think will raise funds and increase their political power.

Environmentalism is to the the post 1950's what Prohibition was to the pre-1940's. A cause.

But its time is coming to an end because with American and Euroland on the verge of serious economic problems, people will have other things to occupy their free time & thinking.

AGW . . . done like dinner. Just the marks haven't figured it out yet and the Eco grifters are circling the carcass trying to pick off the last bits of free money, fame and political fortune.

But its time is coming to an end because with American and Eurodollar on the verge of serious economic problems..

The trillions of dollars Al Global and other Greenish Weenies hoped to invest/steal are already gone.
-
How does it feel having a socialists idiot like Obama spending all your Green dreams?
-

We just can't afford no more stinking windmills!

Fred; Alex and the believers will come for you, I only hope your not obese, with your denieing of "glowbull warming", and is it possible you believe in a round earth, and don't believe in Gore and Suzuki? Good luck all believers in truth. The same media that tells you about the perils of globull warming, will also tell you whatever their 1200 dollar a month reporters are told to tell you, if your stupid enough to believe this SCAM well, you are a "useful idiot", great aspirations. Soon Suzuki will turn his parasitic ways against fat people, that's next.

a Davenport is a couch
And likely the office of his occupation.

Fred's inclusion of Rachel Carsons book Silent Spring as nonsense just shows how ignorant he really is. Carson's book was about toxic chemicals getting into the ground water, then into plants and animals and finally us. The devasting effects of DDT on Raptors is just on scientific fact from the book that led to the banning of DDT. Perhaps science, biology, chemistry, botany, etc is beyond a Ludite such as yourself, but that should best be kept to yourself rather than open mouth an remove all doubt.

Eco-tard. I like that.

ohhhh . . . stick a fork in the eco-maggot and see all the puss and infected crap that oozes out.

Davenport: "Isn't declaring that global warming theory is simply "false", on the basis of a radio interview between a self-described conservative libertarian host and a self-described libertarian conservative guest, both of whom are well-known sceptics of global warming yet neither of whom would describe themselves as experts in the science of climate change, just as doctrinaire and anti-scientific as all of those hard-line global warming true believers that they, and you, disdain and mock?"

If only the countless parrots in the AGW crowd recognized the truth of the second part of that sentence, the "debate" (in fact, only one side is willing to debate) wouldn't be where it is now.

I don't see anything wrong with Robert's comments. Delingpole's interview is an indictment (people don't have to agree with it -- that's in the nature of an indictment), and the second sentence reflects Robert's opinion (shared by many, for many reasons), and not expressed as being based on anything said in the interview. Where's the problem?

Al Gore opens his rich mouth.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622?hpt=hp_bn11

"Isn't declaring that global warming theory is simply "false", on the basis of a radio interview"

Glaring dishonesty thy name is leftard.

Why does everyone who believes the climate grifters like Davenport et al always start by asserting false assumptions or big fat lies that they know are false?
Why not try to prove the theory you're so tangled up in Davenport , why start by lying?
How does that help your argument?

Stephen Smith

I contend that Fred's inclusion of Silent Spring on his list of enviro-alarmism is entirely appropriate.

Rachel Carson has been widely credited with popularizing the environmental movement and a case has been made that she also established the template for hyperbolic claims, a characteristic that persists in the environmental movement to this day.

You may want to try reading up on the topic before calling others a Luddite. Here's a link to a little light reading on the subject to ease you into the ongoing debate.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2428/was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actually-safe-for-humans

Stephen Smith

You may also find this link enlightening.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/12/silent-spring-at-40

Oh...and you owe Fred an apology.

Stephen Smith
"Fred's inclusion of Rachel Carsons book Silent Spring as nonsense just shows how ignorant he really is. Carson's book was about toxic chemicals getting into the ground water, then into plants and animals and finally us. The devasting effects of DDT on Raptors is just on scientific fact from the book that led to the banning of DDT. Perhaps science, biology, chemistry, botany, etc is beyond a Ludite such as yourself, but that should best be kept to yourself rather than open mouth an remove all doubt."

I agree on one point you shoulda kept your trap shut.

DDT does not affect shell strength of eggs....the EPA and WHO both established that with long running tests..and no genetic damage either.

At the time of the DDT ban both agencies were new and needed creds to continue....ignoring research they made a finding for political reasons..their continued funding.

The only objective scientific evidence contra DDT was the finding of minute quantities (by means of new testing techniques) of DDT throughout the evironment.....later to be found bogus....the test could not differentiate between DDT and PCB's(established carcinogens) and subsequent testing improvements established that most of the findings were actually PCBs.

Then a justified crusade against PCBs was conducted but the earlier mistake about DDT was kept suppressed...again for political reasons to maintain the credibility(and their funding) of WHO and the EPA.

This is general knowledge and does not require a link.....do your own research...properly this time.

"The only objective scientific evidence contra DDT was the finding of minute quantities (by means of new testing techniques) of DDT throughout the evironment.....later to be found bogus....the test could not differentiate between DDT and PCB's(established carcinogens) and subsequent testing improvements established that most of the findings were actually PCBs."

This statement may have been true in the beginning, but the latest techniques for testing of these analytes shows that both are in the environment in significant amounts.
I am a chemical analyst and test for these every day in our food supply. Having said that I am not a toxicologist, therefore I have no idea if these chemicals actually do what was claimed to the raptor eggs. I would imagine that they do not, because then it would be continuing and the birds would not be making a population recovery.

DDT may or may not be safe for humans, but dying of marlaria in infancy almost certainly isn't.

....malaria...

and to watch the snake eat it's own tail...

preventing global warming causes....global warming

The Irish Times - Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Cleaner air may make global warming worse

DICK AHLSTROM, Science Editor

IT MAY seem perverse but cleaning up our air pollution problem is going to increase global warming. The cleaner the air over our cities, the more pronounced the warming effect, according to research.

An Irish scientist at NUI Galway originally initiated the research into how air pollution has a hidden beneficial side. It shows the haze that forms due to pollution, the tiny particles discharged by motor transport, and smoke from burning help to reflect back some of the solar radiation that is warming our climate.

If we manage to clean up the pollution we may also ramp up warming, said Prof Colin O’Dowd, professor of physics at Galway and also director of the Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies at the Ryan Institute.

He got a project running under the commission-funded European integrated project on aerosol cloud, climate and air quality interaction. It involved scientists in 48 research institutes in 24 countries and was led by Prof Markku Kulmala of the University of Helsinki.

“We have been studying the interaction between air pollution and climate change with a focus on aerosols and particulate matter,” he said yesterday. “Greenhouse gas emissions are rising which are leading to global warming. But pollution is rising too and this is masking the greenhouse effect.”

The results are shocking given their calculations on this masking, published yesterday in Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. Cleaner air could increase average global temperatures by 1 degree globally and by between 2-4 degrees over Europe.

“The warming may be even larger,” Prof O’Dowd said.

“With better air quality and cleaning up aerosol emissions we are removing this haze layer which has a cooling effect,” he said. “It demonstrates the need to control air pollution but also have greenhouse gas abatement strategies.”

The research team was not advocating allowing the pollution to remain as a way to control global warming, he stressed. Yet some scientists had advocated “geoengineering”, creating natural hazes by seeding the stratosphere with clean aerosols or creating them from sea water. He was not in favour of such approaches given uncertainty about hidden effects.

“The bottom line is it comes down to economics. What will the economic cost be of poorer health and reduced life-span versus the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?”

Rita said......" it is pretty clear that there are holes in the theory."

Holes as big as the Grand Canyon......just sayin!

A very entertaining interview. I will have to pay more attention to Mr Delingpole.

Whether or not CO2 has a significant influence on climate is debatable, the claim that global warming is dangerous is wrong. Moderate global warming will benefit the majority of mankind, especially countries like Canada, and have NEGLIGIBLE effect on most other species.

Ken in Ab, I'm curious what kind of concentrations of organochlorine pesticides you're finding now? Given the millions of tons of DDT that were produced in the 1950's, it wouldn't surprise me if there were ppb or ppt concentrations found in just about any biologic system one tested as these are highly lipophilic molecules.

The problem I find is that many people confuse finding trace amounts of pesticides with toxic amounts not realizing how sensitive analytic techniques have become. Similarly, I found the Greenpeace campaign against chlorine hilarious as they seemed to be totally clueless that neutrophils produce hypochlorite to kill bacteria (ie bleach). Similarly, the body produces methanol, ethanol, CO and NO and, CO and NO are actually neurotransmitters! It took me a while to accept that CO was working as a neurotransmitter. Maybe every radical environmentalist should be forced to have "it's the dose that makes the poison" tattooed on their arms so they can conveniently refresh their memory every time they start to rant about ppb concentrations of pesticides in food.

Black Mamba - too bad that was a typo. I was looking forwards to the operatic description of how to make quicklime.