My 2017 Delingpole Podcast

When I was in England in December, I did this podcast with James Delingpole

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to My 2017 Delingpole Podcast

  1. Rud Istvan says:

    Very well done. Kudos.

  2. Steve Case says:

    GISSTEMP
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    has published their latest GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index to include March 2018 and compared to last month’s issue current to February, a total of 458 changes were made.

    Kinda just warms your heart to know that our government scientists are hard at work doesn’t it (-:

  3. Anon says:

    Worth listening to in it’s entirety.

    Tony, do you have any more of these long version videos or interviews?
    I like your short videos about specific topics, but these longer ones fill in
    a lot of the more subtle context, etc.

    Thanks for posting!

  4. Disillusioned says:

    Excellent. Thanks for posting!

  5. gregole says:

    Lots of good material. About 2:30 in, there’s a discussion concerning what is permissible to present as debate (by the grand pooh-bahs of climate debate) and how at a conference (the mighty) Steve McIntyre tells Tony to basically shut up. Time for a personal moment from Gregole:

    1. My dad (may his soul rest in peace) was an amateur geologist and an avid baseball fan. I broke his heart by being neither interested in geology nor baseball. But. In 2009 I became aware of Climategate I and read Mosher’s book and was hooked on the great Climate Scam.
    2. Started checking out the climate blogs and discovered WUWT. It became my goto site. Loved Goddard. Facts. Was astonished when he was banned.
    3. Goddard was banned. Checked out RealClimateScience.
    4. Eventually it became my goto site.
    5. Over time, I came to realize the Climate Thing is a total fraud/scam perpetrated by a tiny minority of self-appointed pooh-bahs. Some have degrees in English. Some…God knows what discipline they hale from because all they contribute is word-play, nit picking, and wholesale fabrication. One theory I have is that they are law students practicing arguing impossible positions; another theory is that they are internet bots – again constructed by students.

    So. This climate non-sense is a hobby for many. But I bore rather quickly with other people’s fetishes. And that’s why I keep coming back here. Facts. Just facts. Check them. Rarely to never is Tony stumped on the facts.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “And that’s why I keep coming back here. Facts. Just facts. Check them. Rarely to never is Tony stumped on the facts.”

      Boom!

  6. Griff says:

    Delingpole of course has no science based qualifications whatever… he makes a living shamefully winding up the right about the evils of climate change… his distortion of fact would make Goebels blush (I include the nazi reference since James will always, always reference that wind power and green ideas are a nazi invention.)

    He writes amusing, if rather rude, WW2 novels which I can recommend if you aren’t easily shocked. He really should stick to the stuff he actually publishes as fiction

    • tonyheller says:

      Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has no scientific qualifications, yet gets presented to every schoolchild in America as a scientist.

      James has a far better understanding of science than Nye – or 99.9% of climate alarmists. Thus he is a scientist.

    • AndyG55 says:

      So, absolutely nothing to counter anything discussed.

      You are a climate NON-ENTITY, a germ, nothing more.

    • Gator says:

      Who makes a living off whom Winding up folks about climate change?

      Alarmists Ms Griff, that’s who.

      Why do you guys hate poor brown people?

    • dennisambler says:

      “Delingpole of course has no science based qualifications whatever…” he is not alone…

      Dr Ottmar Edenhofer has no science based qualifications whatsoever, yet he is the Co-Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact and is an IPCC lead author, with many papers on climate to his name.

      Lord Nicholas Stern has no science based qualifications whatsoever, yet he is chairman of the London School of Economics Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and has major input into UK energy policy.

      Dr Richard H Moss has no science based qualifications whatsoever, his doctorate is in Public and International Affairs, yet he is a senior scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute, at the University of Maryland.

      He has been Vice President and Managing Director for Climate Change at the World Wildlife Fund. He is a former Senior Director for Climate Change and Energy at the United Nations Foundation. The UNF was founded in 1998 with $1billion from Ted Turner, its President is former senator Timothy Wirth, who helped to launch James Hansen into global warming fame in 1988.

      Moss has been a member of the IPCC since 1993. He was a Review editor for IPCC AR5 WGII Ch. 14, “Adaptation needs and options”. From 2000 to 2006, he served as director of the coordination office for the United States Climate Change Science Program.

      I could go on, and on and on.

      • Griff says:

        Perhaps we had better leave it… as there is no limit to the unqualified on either side…

        e.g Lord Monckton…

        though of course the actual professional climate scientists are nearly all (97%?) on the side of the evidence… i.e. that human CO2 is changing the climate.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Anyone citing the 97% bullshit is unqualified by definition.

          Thank you, Ms Griff, for telling us to which group you belong.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            One also wonders how many papers Ms Griff published to refute Monckton. She called him unqualified so it should have been a piece of cake.

          • Gator says:

            Just goes to show that Ms Griff is not into fact checking, likely her hatred of the poor is the reasoning behind this.

            In contrast, the reason we are skeptics is exactly because we do ask the hard questions, instead of being spoon fed opinions like lazy children. That and we do not hate the poor.

        • Gator says:

          Monckton has authored many articles and scientific papers…

          “What is science and what is not?” and “The Thermageddon cult strikes again”. In: Planetary Influence on the Sun and the Earth, and a Modern Book-Burning, N-A Mörner and R. Tattersall [Eds.], Nova Sci. Publ., 2015

          “Naming and Shaming the Rent-a-Quote Scientists: A Reply to Critics of Why Models Run Hot,” 2015.

          Disinvestment? Schmisinvestment! Coal, oil and gas are the best guarantors of life, liberty and happiness [with Willie Soon]. In: The Illiberal Movement to Turn a Generation Against Fossil Fuels, Rachelle Peterson [Ed.], National Association of Scholars, Washington DC, 2015.

          Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin 60:1378-1390, doi:10.1007/s11434-015-0856-2

          “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” Science Bulletin, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2015.

          Resilience, not CO2 mitigation, is the imperative (invited paper), in Urban Water Reuse Handbook (J. Eslamian, ed.), 2015

          “The temperature feedback problem,” Energy and Environment, 2015.

          “Our influence on sea level is negligible,” Coordinates, Journal of the Marine Navigation Industry, 2014.

          “Frauds, Serious Frauds and IPCC Assessment Reports,” Science and Public Policy Institute, September 18, 2013.

          “But What Do We Mean by Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute, September 17, 2013.

          “Response to the Scare-Mongering of the Financial Times,” Science and Public Policy Institute, September 3, 2013.

          “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change,’” with David Legates, Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs, Science and Education, August 2013.

          “The Logical Case Against Climate Panic,” Science and Public Policy Institute, July 25, 2013.

          “Ten Years’ Accelerated Global Warming? No, Mr. President!” Science and Public Policy Institute, July 22, 2013.

          “So Far, Climate Scepticism is Right,” Science and Public Policy Institute, May 30, 2013.

          “Request for Correction of Serious Inaccuracy,” Science and Public Policy Institute, May 7, 2013.

          “Cook The Books is Wrong to Slam Roy Spencer,” Science and Public Policy Institute, May 7, 2013.

          “Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective?” Science and Public Policy Institute, May 3, 2013.

          “Political Science: the dangers of intergovernmental climatology,” Energy & Environment, 2013.

          “No Global Warming for Almost Two Decades,” Science and Public Policy Institute, January 15 2013.

          “Expert Reviewer Comments on Second-Order Draft of WGI’s Contribution to AR5,” Science and Public Policy Institute, January 3, 2013.

          “Overcoming Chaotic Behavior in Climate Models,” with S. Fred Singer, in International Seminar on Nuclear War: The Role of Science in the Third Millennium, ed. By Richard C. Raigani, World Scientific Publishing, Inc., 2012.

          “Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?” (Annual Proceedings, World Federation of Scientists’ seminars on planetary emergencies., 2012).

          “Sea Level Is Not Rising,” with Prof. Niklas Moerner, Centre for Democracy and Independence, London, 2011.

          “Global Brightening and Climate Sensitivity,” with Rannoch Carie, International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, World Scientific Publishing, Inc., 2011.

          “Clouds and climate sensitivity,” Annual Proceedings, World Federation of Scientists’ seminars on planetary emergencies, 2010.

          “Response to Arthur Smith’s Critique of Christopher Monckton’s ‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered,’” Science and Public Policy Institute, 2008.

          “Climate Sensitivity,” UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, 2007.

          “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered,” Physics and Society 37 (3), July 2008.

          “Free Speech about Climate Change,” Society 44 (4): 14–17. May–June 2007.

          “Climate Chaos? Don’t Believe It,” AIG News, November 2006.

          https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/lord-christopher-monckton

          Bill Nye ever publish in a scientific journal?

        • Anon says:

          Hey Griff,

          Your Scientific credentials are what? Your PhD is in what? How did you become an expert in climate? What publications do you have? What should anyone here listen to you? You strike me as an amateur dabbler / dilettante with a keyboard. Should we just write you off as that? Or do you have some professional erudition?

        • Anon says:

          Back with the 97% ???– what was that measuring Griff? What was Cook’s methodology? Was he truly measuring scientific consensus or was he measuring censorship & repression under the Obama Era?

          Take a look at this paper:

          https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/29/564043596/climate-scientists-watch-their-words-hoping-to-stave-off-funding-cuts

          Now imagine running the Cook study after 8 years of Trump & Pruitt in office. Do you still think it would be 97%? If not, why? Well, because the Trump Administration believes AGW is most politically driven BS and scientists could possibly lose their funding because of it. So if Cook re-runs his study in 8 years and finds fewer scientists believing in AGW, will he leave it at that? Or claim it was due censorship and repression in the Trump Era? My guess is the later.

          So, in one instance the guy claims he is measuring scientific consensus, but the exact same study, repeated in another administration will be scientific repression.

          So, that begs the question, what exactly was Cook measuring?

          For the pinheads out there, who miss my point: Lets say I surveyed all the opinion pages of 100 newspapers in the GDR, between 1980 and 1989 (when the wall came down) for dissident comments that were opposed to the regime. Having found “zero” could I then make the claim that there were zero dissidents in the GDR?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Lord Monckton would leave at least 97% of so-called climate scientists grovelling in the dirt when it comes to mathematical analysis or statistics.

          His understanding climate is also FAR greater than most “climate” scientists.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Griff,
          What criteria defines a “professional” climate scientist. Is Michael Mann a professional climate scientist though his degree is in physics? At least you had the intelligence to place a question mark after the 97% figure.

    • Griff says:

      True, Bill Nye is an amateur.

      I don’t think he represents himself in the same way as Delingpole though.

    • Sharpshooter says:

      For all your stepping in poop piles, you must be keeping Zappos’ in business.

  7. Margaret Smith says:

    gator and others, if you know for sure griff is female please say so. If, on the other hand, you know griff is male or you don’t know which I can only assume the MS and ‘she’ you use is intended as an insult.

    Unfortunately, I feel insulted too as would be all female sceptics also Judith Curry and Susan Crockford. Please tone it down…..

    • Gator says:

      Sorry Margaret, but Griff has not once told me she is not a woman. I saw her addressed as such, and no correction in sight. Is being a woman really worse than being an ignorant poor people hating troll? I have no need to use insults on Griff.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Margaret,

      Ms Griff gets ridiculed because of her stupid contributions, not because she’s a woman. I’m sorry that you feel insulted by the honorifics but should I feel insulted because you seem to assume this person is a man?

      I know plenty of stupid men but why do you think that addressing “griff” as a man is not an insult to all male skeptics?

    • AndyG55 says:

      It……. a sort of amorphous blob of green sludge. !

      or just use one of the gender confused titles

      cis griff.

  8. OrganicFool says:

    What caused the warming after the Younger Dryas?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.