Tuesday, March 5, 2013

"Why we fight"

James Delingpole has a great essay explaining why he fights enviro-nazis with such vigor.

Am I angry with these scumbags? You bet I am. Do I think they deserve the unpleasant epithets I cast at them? Absolutely not – they deserve insults far nastier and more graphic than I could ever get away with delivering in a family newspaper. 
Yes, I know there are those who think I sometimes go over the top in the way I sledge the opposition. But this is not a criticism I'm going to buy – or ever will buy. Did Churchill ever issue a wartime directive that, following complaints submitted by the German embassy in Dublin, soldiers should refrain from singing hurtful songs about Herr Hitler's monotesticular status? Not as far as I can recall. In war, all is fair game. When the other side behaves badly, it deserves to be called on it – in the most explicit terms possible – not excused on the dubious grounds that if we're a bit nicer to the Imperial Japanese Army and don't draw any nasty cartoons depicting them with buck teeth and thick spectacles maybe next time they'll desist from tying wounded prisoners to trees and using them for bayonet practice. 
As I argue at the end of Watermelons, there's only one side in this debate which considers it acceptable or desirable to:

Rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order. 
And it most definitely ain't the people on my side of the argument.
Delingpole has done a great job telling the truth about the global warming scam and about the deeply anti-human agenda of the green fanatics. His term "watermelons" is apt-- environmental crazies are green on the outside and red on the inside. Environmentalism is a veneer covering a quite classical far-left agenda of control over every intimate aspect of your life, including the air you exhale.

This fight really matters. There people are dead serious, and they want power. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives-- they already have sacrificed scores of millions of lives-- to gain control over governments and economies.

Delingpole has been fighting the good fight for a while now. I wholeheartedly recommend his book Watermelons. It's a great expose of the green totalitarians, and it's available on Kindle!  


  1. Dr. Egnor: I just wrote a longer comment that was lost. Basically, what I wanted to say is that Hitler comparisons are trite and usually inappropriate. I wouldn't hesistate for a moment to compare the Nazi Holocaust the Holocaust of Choice currently underway in American abortion clinics, but beyond that, I think we should mind our Hitler comparisons.


    1. TRISH:

      I understand the need to be careful about Nazi analogies.

      That said, I do point out that the actual Nazis were quite "green"-- they were passionate environmentalists, and imposed some of the first and most extensive environmental programs in modern history.

      Regarding the death toll, enviros have killed far more people than Hitler. Population control measures have killed at least 100 million girls, mostly through sex-selective abortions, and probably tens of millions of boys.

      I don't make Nazi comparisons lightly. But the numbers speak for themselves.

    2. And the Nazis also ran trains on schedule. Therefore we shall kill Amtrak.

      Your logic is often hilarious, doctor.


    3. Sex-selective abortions have nothing to do with the environmental movement and everything to do with the cultural preferences that value sons (bread winners) over daughters (dependents).

      This twisted logic exposes you as an angry fool who is a partisan hack first and a thinker last.


    4. @Hoo:

      [Sex-selective abortions have nothing to do with the environmental movement]

      Are you denying that sex-selective abortion (eg in China) are often motivated by the government's One Child Policy, which in a culture that values boys over girls would be expected to cause femicide?

    5. Egnor,

      I am not going to get into a dispute with someone who refers to his opponents as Nazis and Communists at the same time. You don't deserve to be taken seriously. It would be like trying to argue with a dufus who wanders around 7th Avenue with a sign "The end is nigh."

      Listen to TRISH. She is trying to tell you that you look like an idiot. ANd she is right.


    6. @Hoo:

      What do you think of China's One Child Policy?

      It is a violation of human rights?

      Has it been motivated by the theory that overpopulation is a threat?

      Has it contributed to the Asian femicide (100 million dead girls)?

      How many deaths from environmentalist policies would we need to plausibly equate environmentalism (eg overpopulating activism) to Nazi policies?

      Reminder: Hitler killed 60 million people. Environmental activism (overpopulation hysteria and anti-DDT activism) have claimed at least 160 million lives.

      I would have expected Nazis to comment on my blog that they are outraged to be compared to environmentalists, not the other way around.

    7. Here's a link on the Nazi greens:



    8. Lots of questions, Egnor? I will answer them when the drool stops running from your chin. Reasoning with a madman isn't my idea of a conversation.


    9. @Hoo:


      Heck, I'll answer them for you.

      [What do you think of China's One Child Policy?]

      A totalitarian atrocity. Ranks with the greatest crimes against humanity.

      [It is a violation of human rights?]

      Hell yes.

      [Has it been motivated by the theory that overpopulation is a threat?]


      [Has it contributed to the Asian femicide (100 million dead girls)?]

      Obviously. Restricting family size in a male-favoring culture predictably leads to femicide of girls.

      [How many deaths from environmentalist policies would we need to plausibly equate environmentalism (eg overpopulating activism) to Nazi policies?]

      I think we have enough environmental corpses by now to equate the two totalitarian ideologies.

    10. You are pretty good at talking to yourself, doctor! Keep up the good work.


    11. China's One Child Policy came directly from Mao's delusion that for China to become a big power, it needed a lot of people. So births were encouraged in the '50s and '60s and the population burgeoned.

      It was mainly to get cannon fodder for wars. This was illustrated in the dying days of the Korean war, after the ceasefire was agreed to but before it came into effect, the Chinese launched a suicidal attack in which thousands died.

      The communist leadership has made a sort of contract with the population; ensure a steadily increasing standard of livintsonspel its population and the population won't try to overthrow the communist party. And it's worked, sort of.

      From an evolutionary point of view, an equal sex ratio is the stable one, because whenever there's an excess of one gender, the other becomes favored. And that's happening in China. Well off parents of a boy have to save to be able to make their son more attractive as a marriage prospect (which is one of the reasons why China manages to save so much, and America doesn't). Less well off parents have an incentive to have a daughter, because a daughter won't have any trouble finding a spouse.

      Agreed; China's One Child Policy wasn't thought out well. Particularly in a society which favored sons, and with access to antenatal gender determination and elective abortions. Antenatal gender determination should have been banned.

      Anyway, China's One Child Policy is on the way out. It's going to become a Two Child Policy in the next few years, and dropped completely soon after. And it actually only applied to urban Han Chinese (the majority group), not minorities or rural Chinese.

    12. [China's One Child Policy came directly from Mao's delusion that for China to become a big power]

      No. China's One Child Policy has two real roots. One is population control junk science. The planners of the Policy were directly influenced by European population control cranks. There is a direct line from overpopulation hysterics to China's OCP.

      The second root is deeper. Totalitarians have two implacable enemies: God, and the family. Totalitarian governments invariably outlaw or co-opt religion as soon as they seize power.

      The family is the other loyalty that is lethal to totalitarian control. Population control decimates the family, literally, and forces dependence on government. A large stable family knit together by love and loyalty is a totalitarian's nightmare.

      Much of the motivation of population controllers-- including the motivation of the Chinese totalitarians-- is to weaken family ties and make citizens dependent on government, not family.

    13. The link for the academic origin of China's One Child Policy:

    14. Michael,

      Freakonomics' was just batshit crazy. No wonder you like it.

  2. This is very tedious. Having to explain to you repeatedly why AGW is true.

    AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases, which has been known since the 19th century.

    The Sun, with its surface temperature of 5600 degrees Celcius, radiates a lot of infrared radiation, visible light and ultraviolet light, maximal around the frequency of green. Certain frequencies of infrared radiation are absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, warming it. Most of the ultraviolet is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere blocking it. The atmosphere is transparent to visible light, which is either absorbed by the land or oceans, causing warming, or reflected from ice, snow or clouds, causing no warming.

    The Earth, now warmed by the Sun, radiates infrared radiation, which is the way the Earth cools.

    Eventually a balance is reached, and heat in equals heat out. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the average global temperature can be calculated, which for the Earth, with an albedo of 0.30 and no greenhouse gases, is minus 18 degrees Celcius instead of 15 degrees Celcius. Greenhouse gases cause 33 degrees Celcius of warming.

    AGW is based on:

    Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, retain heat and cause warming.

    Increasing greenhouse gases will cause a greater retention of heat and increase warming.

    Humans are increasing greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels and land clearing, dumping 9 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.

    Therefore humans are causing global warming over the temperature the Earth would otherwise have.

    'Would otherwise have' is important. Greenhouse gases are actually a small albeit fairly constant factor. The Sun provides around 1000 Watts per square metre, on average, during the day. Greenhouse gases provide currently less than a Watt of warming per square metre, so it can be exceeded from time to time by other factors.

    We're currently in a solar minimum, which would be expected to cause cooling. India and China are burning large amounts of dirty coal, increasing atmospheric particulates, increasing albedo and reflecting more of the solar radiation, again causing global cooling. In 1997, there was a warm el Niño, dumping oceanic heat into the atmosphere causing atmospheric warming. 2012 was a la Nina year, in which the oceans again absorbed heat, causing atmospheric cooling.

    So 1997 to 2012 was a pause; starting with a warm el Niño, finishing with a cool la Nina, and associated with a solar minimum and increased atmospheric particulates, all of which would be expected to cause cooling. And they won't persist, so warming must occur in future years.

    If you want to disprove AGW, then all you have to do is to disprove the well known physical properties of greenhouse gases. The science isn't difficult to understand.

    1. @bachfiend

      Your take on AGW is like your take on Darwinian evolution, much more based on faith in your worldview than actual real science.

      If you really want to educate yourself on climate change, instead of repeating hollow mantras all the time, put the following link in your favorites and consult it daily:

      Watts Up With That?

      "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"

  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 5, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    Actually, I love AGW Rapture Science. I've always wanted a picture of Michael Mann dancing with a bone in his nose and feathers around his ankles as he practices his dendromancy.

    During the AGW lulls (i.e., when Al Gore is beached), I also enjoy reading about the Poppalation Bomb and Peek Oil.

    The panty-wetting eek!ophile cadres are endlessly entertaining.

  4. Conservatives just a couple of short years ago would regularly deny that global warming was real, now they only deny that anthropomorphic global warming is real. That’s progress I suppose. A couple of more years of hand waving about sunspots and ocean currents with nothing to back it up, and the only people left denying AWG will be the religious zealots and oligarchs who profit from the status quo. Unfortunately these two groups are the Republican Party.


    1. There's been no global warming for 16 years and counting.

      Aside from the lack of global warming, global warming is real.

    2. Michael,

      I pointed out why there is the appearance of 'no global warming for 15 years' in my comment, if you bothered to read it. And understand it. But reading competency isn't one of your core skills. Taking a simplistic outlook on everything is, though.

      As one of my internal medicine tutors once said; surgeons are skilled with their hands - but not great thinkers.

      The science of AGW isn't difficult. You should be able to understand it with a little effort.

      Pepe certainly can't though.

    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      Post hoc "explanations" of why the models failed are pathetic. The dog ate my warming.

      And I can certainly understand that an internal medicine tutor would feel that way. I'm sure many psychiatrists do as well.

      But we do agrree on one thing - partially, at least - the "science" of AGW isn't difficult. In fact, it's not even science.

    4. Georgie,

      Why don't you crack open a book on climate science one day, not just one dealing with AGW. We understand the factors driving climate. We just don't have models sufficiently accurate to forecast all of them.

      For a start, we don't have a model to be able to forecast solar output. We know that there's an 11 year cycle, but we can't predict how strong or weak a future cycle will be.

      AGW denialism is a created phenomenon. In the '90s, Republican and Democrat voters showed similar acceptance of AGW. The oil and coal companies set to work to confuse the population, and they succeeded, so Republican voters became denialists, and as the evidence became stronger, Democrat voters became more convinced by the evidence.

      AGW denialism is a characteristic of grumpy elderly white males, who have seen their influence wane. It tends to go along with evolution denial, gun ownership, antiabortion attitudes, tendency to authoritarian views...

      Until we can contrive the demise of this population group, we won't see the end of the ill advised AGW denialism. Hey, wait! I'm a grumpy elderly white male too!

    5. bach:

      As the Admiral wisely quips, the science of AGW isn't difficult. It's not even science.

      It's politics. It's about control. It's about power, and money.

      It's a shameless transparent hoax, conjured in service of some genuinely vile ends. The good it does-- and it does do some good-- is that it dissuades any even marginally honest person from a belief in scientism in any form.

      AGW shows your hand.

    6. Michael,

      You live in a world of your making, in a world of self-deception. Georgie isn't an admiral, remember? He made up and gave himself the title.

      AGW is real. It's based on the well known physical properties of greenhouse gases. AGW denialism is artificially fabricated. By oil and coal companies wishing to be able to sell their products at high prices, despite the risks.

      You persist in proving that your reading and reasoning skills are substandard. As you proved in several comments you made concerning Benjamin Libet in the thread on 'confirmation bias' 3 months ago, when you claimed Libet had found that an individual is aware of a touch sensation before the action potential has had time to reach the person's brain.

      It confirmed my opinion that you can't accurately understand what you've read and can't recognize a logical impossibility when you've misinterpreted something you've read.

      You promised that you'd write a thread on Libet. I take it you realized you were wrong, and are too embarrassed to admit it now?

    7. bach:

      What has Libet got to do with AGW?

      You're amusing when you free-associate.

    8. Michael,

      It illustrates that you have problems with reading comprehension, logical thinking, living in a world of self-deception and a refusal to face facts.

      You're the perfect example of an angry elderly white male who has lost his privileged position and power in society and has adopted any number of bizarre beliefs to bolster his self-esteem.

      Understand? Perhaps not.

    9. This year set yet another record for arctic ice melt. Where again Michael is the corresponding cold spot? Since the globe hasn’t warmed in 16 years there must be one. Please do tell.


    10. KW,

      Richard Muller of BEST fame, who confirmed that global warming is occurring based on the examination of all weather stations, even taking into consideration of the heat island effect, noted that 1/3 of stations showed a cooling and 2/3 of weather stations showed a warming, giving a net overall warming.

      It's just the result of a complex system in which overall warming can cause unpredictable local weather conditions. Perhaps Michael lives in one of the cooler areas?

      AGW denialism generally occurs in 4 stages; 1. It's not happening. 2. It's happening, but it's not due to humans, it's cyclical. 3. It's happening, due to humans, but it's going to be good. CO2 is plant fertilizer. 4. It's happening, due to humans and will, alas, have dire effects - but there's nothing we can do about it. The wind doesn't always blow and the Sun doesn't always shine, so renewable energy sources won't work. We might as well get used to an unpredictable world.

      Michael is an undeveloped AGW denialist, swinging from 1 to 2. You can really pick an advanced AGW denialist if he manages to express all 4 stages on the same day, as Bjorn Lomborg manages to do.