Archive for the ‘journalist’ Category

Richard D North

Richard D North, not to be confused with Richard North who co writes and hangs out with Christopher Booker, isn’t really a climate change denier, he is perhaps honourably, a climate change sceptic.  He is right wing, he has little respect for green politics but he makes intelligent arguments and his writings are critical of the extremes of climate denialists.

highly recommended [although you don’t have to agree with his views ] as a genuine sceptic. His blog is here.

“Lord Lawson and Benny Peiser are bonny climate change policy warriors but they have perhaps made a strategic error in lining-up climate (or AGW) deniers for their new think-tank.

I admire Benny Peiser’s devotion to the cause of climate change debate, and Lord Lawson’s book (An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming) was a very interesting discussion of climate change policy. Their new foundation could have done marvellous work exposing the intellectual, moral, political and economic weaknesses in much (almost all) public utterance and policy in this field. They would have had a large if minority audience, and a good deal of support, not least from serious players.

Instead, they have chosen to fall into bed with all sorts of  people who deny or doubt the science surrounding AGW (anthropogenic climate change). In doing so, they alienate almost all the concerned and interested people in the country. David Aaronovitch of The Times has already weighed-in in terms which the GWPF could easily have avoided. Politicians, for instance, will doubtless learn from the foundation in private, but they’ll have to hold their noses and make sure they distance themselves from their educators.”

also a review of Ian Plimer’s book

“The latest climate change row concerns a book by the “denier”, Ian Plimer (an Australian geologist) and its most public critic, climate “alarmist”, George Monbiot (of the Guardian). George seems to be winning hands-down at the moment. It happens that another Australian, Garth Paltridge, has also produced a climate change book, and it is sceptical rather than refusenik. I hope my review of the books, below, shows how they are both bad.”


Matt Ridley

Journalist, Author and possess a zoology doctorate on sexual selection in pheasants.


From his Wikipedia entry

Views on climate change

Ridley has expressed strong criticism of the science of climate change and its conclusions. In October 2011, invited for the Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts Edinburgh, he said “Stalagmites, tree lines and ice cores all confirm that it was significantly warmer 7000 years ago. Evidence from Greenland suggests that the Arctic ocean was probably ice free for part of the late summer at that time. Sea level is rising at the unthreatening rate about a foot per century and decelerating. Greenland is losing ice at the rate of about 150 gigatonnes a year, which is 0.6% per century. There has been no significant warming in Antarctica, with the exception of the peninsula. Methane has largely stopped increasing. Tropical storm intensity and frequency have gone down, not up, in the last 20 years. Your probability of dying as a result of a drought, a flood or a storm is 98% lower globally than it was in the 1920s. Malaria has retreated not expanded as the world has warmed. And so on. I’ve looked and looked but I cannot find one piece of data – as opposed to a model – that shows either unprecedented change or change is that is anywhere close to causing real harm….”.[21]

On the climate debate he added: “I see confirmation bias everywhere in the climate debate. Hurricane Katrina, Mount Kilimanjaro, the extinction of golden toads – all cited wrongly as evidence of climate change. A snowy December, the BBC lectures us, is ‘just weather’; a flood in Pakistan or a drought in Texas is ‘the sort of weather we can expect more of’. A theory so flexible it can rationalize any outcome is a pseudoscientific theory.”[22]

Writes for the Wall St Journal, wrote for the Economist has a blog and although claims to be lukewarm most of what he says is often wrong and fits with denial.

Author of popular Rational Optimist the New Scientist gave his work to a handful of specialists. According to them, the author “completely ignores the mainstream scientific literature”, “has a very poor understanding of the core issues”, and “introduces confusion”. He “cherry-picked evidence to form opinions which are unsupported by the bulk of scientific evidence”. His work was “misleading”, and an “ideological account”.

His politics is right-wing/libertarian fits with denier belief that AGW is some kind of political tool although like his proclaimed MMCC lukewarm-ness he says otherwise-

I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view.[32]

Matt Ridley comes across as more kindly, intelligent and informed climate change denier when compared to his ‘batshit’ contemporaries but stills draws from the same well. A lukewarmer in the sense that a warmer planet is nothing to worry about.

James Delingpole

James Delingpole, journalist for the Telegraph and Spectator, writer of some books. a self proclaimed ‘interpreters of interpreters’ who admits he knows little of science.

Either a well paid plant: a 5th columnist for Greenpeace or a cynic looking to find a following with the ranks of rightwing anti-Euro, pro UKIP, [pro extreme right judging from comments on his articles] or completely bonkers [and I don’t mean his struggle with bi-polar]. Arguments are so shallow that one gets the impression he has run out of things to actually say. Main occupation is build a strawman and then beat it to death often across several editions of the Sunday Telegraph. Usual arguments are ‘there is no warming’ ‘warming is good’ ‘wind turbines cause birth defects, are a scam, don’t work, produce more CO2 than coal burning, anything trawled from the blogosphere’ and that fracking, or unconventional gas drilling is the answer to all our problems. Big on name calling such eco-facist,   “celebrity Muppet-/Druid-/The-Master-Impersonator”,“squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser”,  “one of Al Gore’s useful idiots” .

“…the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition’s energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children’s schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council… Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”

His personal attack reached a climax when an ordinary concerned citizen was singled out in his Telegraph blog . And again with a war hero, will he ever learn?  His acute reporting was at the centre of the Climategate, Amazongate, Himalayagate non news items and he also likes using the suffix -gate.

Very difficult to know what he actually believes except his hate of wind turbines, there is no warming vs exaggerated warming vs it is natural vs it will be great when it warms. Believes libertarian politics is best but also loves the monarchy. Thinks climate science is some kind of huge conspiracy.

Standing in the by-election in Corby, [will keep you posted on his defeat.] Generating a tag line – WINDTURBINES WORSE THAN PAEDOPHILIA, yes, really.

“I believe that wind farms are a cancer: one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated against the country by Westminster. I want to raise public awareness of just how disastrous these bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes are in every single respect. And I want to urge the people of Corby and East Northants not to vote for any of the three parties that support these monstrosities. That means don’t, whatever you do, vote LibLabCon,”

“If there were a single plausible argument in favour of wind power, my task would be a much harder one than it is. But there isn’t. The wind industry is so wrong in every way that to be against it ought to be no more contentious than being against paedophilia”.


It seems the plot thickens- Delingbot was in collusion with some anti-green Tories [see the undercover film here- and Guardian exclusive] only to drop out of the race when Hayes made the front page of the Mail condemning wind-turbines, saying ‘my work is done’. Quite what the fallout will be will be interesting.

Informing the undercover reporter that Delingpole was “pulling out” of the election, Heaton-Harris said the timing was “contrived”. “So you have the speech [by Hayes], two front pages,” the undercover reporter said. “And then Delingpole stands down and that’s all sort of saying, ‘My work is done’?” “Yeah, there’s been a bit of leverage that he’s given me,” Heaton-Harris said. “I’ve been working on this since the ministerial teams changed.”

The MP reflected on how Hayes was now a minister “in a department that absolutely hates him”, but still had the support of the cabinet. Hayes’ remarks about wind farms had caused “quite a nice bust-up between the Lib Dems and us”, the MP said.

James getting pwn3d [owned!] by Sir Paul Nurse a scientist.

For all his ramblings, constantly repeating the same old nonsense and simplistic writing he is succeeding in building a sufficient following to justify his Telegraph, Spectator, Mail salary, as well as shift enough of his books to adoring followers. His writings are easy to digest, completely wrong and suitable for those for 12 year olds.  His acerbic wit was tried out in the Independent online in early 2012 but despite being provocative he scored no response.

The Australian was forced to print an extensive correction and judgement from the Press Council following a rabid attack on the wind turbine industry by Delingpole.

UPDATE in response to a comment posted below it would suggest that the number of comments a journalist or blogger receives ranking accordingly, and given such a mark of popularity I tested Delingpole’s numbers.

Choosing a random post [with the usual hostility to eco-facsists, the BBC, Greenpeace etc] that had generated 2263 comments over a two day period.  Delingpole has a loyal following so selecting some the usual contributors I counted up the number of posts.

Bootsjenson was the most prolific with 10% with 212. Lincolnrhyme followed with 169, and Grumpydenier just below 90

in the mid range with between 50 and 70 posts were ColdfingerUK [70 posts] dropstone, rocketscientist, fretslider, suffolkboy Motorwaydrifter, bravo22c, BenfromMO

and regulars who posted around 30 comments each  included Fenbeagle, burleyman, Oppugner, oldgoat beegdawg007 and Spence.

These 15 fans of Delingpole contributed to just over half [1156] of the total contributions.

Christopher Booker

Christopher Booker- journalist [although that is being kind, opinionated would be more accurate. Writes a Sunday Telegraph column that flicks from AGW is a lie, the BBC, all scientists, and the liberial media are in on it, the government steals babies [a side interest of his!] the evils of Europe , and wind turbines are a scam. Believes in intelligent design, that passive smoking is not harmful, neither is white asbestos or BSE [mad cow disease]. On the positive side he founded Private Eye.

Look out for his classic mistakes that make his column fun to read.

In his book, or rather manual on being a sceptic The Real Global Warming Disaster he leads with the mythical quote of “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen,” Sir John Houghton was supposed to have said in 1994. In fact it was invented in 2006 [not from 1994- then] by Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Sunday Telegraph.

A graph from the US Environmental Protection Agency showed temperatures having soared in the past 100 years by 1.4 degrees – exactly twice the generally accepted figure.

From Telegraph 23/9/12, confusing Fahrenheit for Centigrade [the U.S uses the former].

The classic was in the winter of 2007/8 after record breaking ice loss in the Arctic bounced back and that he failed to understand that it was winter. George Monbiot lists some of his serious errors.


“Like many other households who, during all that global warming last winter, watched the cost of their oil-fired central heating soaring through the roof, we are now switching to gas. Thus did I learn that the absurdly over-large boiler we are getting rid of generates 100 kilowatts.
“Hang on, I exclaimed: that wind turbine up the hill from where we live in Somerset generated only just over 500kW last year. So a giant wind turbine that cost £2m to build, and that costs us £200,000 a year in subsidies, on top of the £200,000 we pay for its electricity, produces only five times as much energy as the oil-fired boiler I use to warm my house.”

Booker mixing apples and pears and getting confused- boilers don’t generate they emit, a 100 kilowatt is means to measure heat output, like a 3kw electric fire. A 500  kw windturbine is its capacity not output which is in kilowatt hours. This small type could produce up to 2 million kw hours, it won’t but it could and a third of that [which is more likely] is 700,000 kw hours. If you are interested this size of turbine it costs about £850,000 connected to the mains and about £10,000 each year, and could deliver up to £450,000 in electricity each year. A 100kw oil boiler will heat a large house, costs about £2000 installed and up to £1000 in fuel each year.

Andrew William Montford is an English writer and editor who is the owner of the Bishop Hill blog He is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion (2010)

In an interview with Bruce Robbins in The Courier Montford said, “I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I’m less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don’t believe it’s beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It’s more the case that we don’t know and I haven’t seen anything credible to persuade me there’s a problem.” Despite this the blog tends towards denial.

He wrote an attack- report on the bias of the Royal Society and Paul Nurse for the small fee of a few £1000 for Lord Lawson’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation