about the latest from James Delingpole at the U.K. Telegraph:
Hate speech…say nothing T. No electrons should be wasted for a twat…
He says he read English at Oxford. Is that a metaphor, or did he just read something written in English while standing on the Oxford campus? He can whip up a string of big metaphors, sure enough, but he doesn’t seem to understand what metaphors are for.
I just said it with Charmin and then flushed.
Delingpole is incredulous that anyone can take the following as anything other than a metaphor:
“The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.”
Interestingly enough, he thinks the only word that is obviously literal is “industry” and the rest is obviously metaphor because how can one execute an industry?
But climate scientists are obviously not an industry so I can only assume that word is meant as a metaphor and the rest could then be meant literally.
Then he has the gall to be surprised that others see a moral equivalency between his statement and that of Parncutt. What a hypocrisy.
And then he has the gall to claim his arts background makes him much better suited to see that this “debate” is aboute culture not science. But if it is about science then he’s totally unqualified which makes him unqualified to know whether or not he’s qualified.
Finally, I hope he’s still around in 2050 when climate change is obvious to everyone. Is he prepared to accept the fate he so freely wishes on others?
I do get some solace that Delingpole (and Morano, and RPJr) are youngish, and the net’s memory is long.
Precisely. And Delingpole’s idea is actually not wrong: climate criminals should rightly face some accountability — of course under the rule of law (which may become a bit of an uphill battle once the s**t hits the fan and the pitchforks come out), and rules of evidence as appropriate in criminal justice.
Yes, Delingpole is still young…
I really liked the comment comparing Delingpole to Ann Coulter…or maybe it was just a metaphor.
Genuinely astounding in so many ways.
Thanks for calling this to our attention (I think), because generally I have been ignoring Delingpole. Yikes!
This was my comment earlier this morning:
I would say that James is the UK male version of Ann Coulter, except she might be the US female version of James…unless he’s the UK female version of Ann, and she’s the US male version of James…oh dear. It’s so confusing.
I try not to think of either as anatomically correct. It helps.
I haven’t read that much of Delingpole’s stuff,but from the little that I have seen,I think you are spot on. Coulter is like an avant-garde theater project that has gotten out of hand,and people have began to take seriously.
There is no doubt in my mind that Delingpole is deliberately pushing people’s buttons with that article,and who knows if he really believes or cares if any of it is truthful. The reaction is the payoff.
As I remarked on MMs FB page:
This is despicable.
But remember that people like him serve just one function; to produce page hits to sell advertising. It’s the modern eNewspaper business model. Reactionary pseudo journalism (he isn’t a journalist, just a blogger) gets the comment section wound up – money in the bank… Unfortunately linking to the article helps bring in the cash which is what motivated the editor/publishers.
I really don’t think people should link to his stuff – that is playing the game which encourages such things.
This is why I stopped reading Delingtroll’s post long ago. To me he is simply a troll trying to get a reaction. I’ve seen enough trolls to have learnt to ignore them.
Sigh. Just when you think it can’t possibly get any weirder, it does.
Delingpole has the face of a horse and the brain of a chicken.
Of course it was a metaphor. I didn’t literally mean that some surgeons took the face from a horse and the brain from a chicken and transplanted them onto Delingpole.
At least he acknowledges there is no scientific debate even if he wants to continue his rhetorical agitating.
“… this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one.”
That was brilliantly witty; I applaud you.
James Delbot [is a twat (this is not a metaphor)] has provoked utter hatred of anyone green/responsible/scientific with language which is violent and his supporters follow suit. To claim he was only joking displays either a fear someone may act, or sue but nonetheless it displays a very limited scope in critical writing. But the poor trapped is now trapped, the rhetoric must continue and he cannot back down as that would be defeat.
defeated by reality now that would be a thing.
In talking about global warming, I am astounded by the level of frustration and Leviathan persistence (metaphor and literary allusion) of institutional misinformation.
Sometimes I have to let go and watch. I am renewed and buoyed by the science. Global warming climate change is unfolding, as it must, according to laws of physical science. And we can observe as much as we like, And most interestingly, the fascinating changes happening are completely removed from our verbal squabbling. Another analogy applies here: It’s like shouting at gravity. And the falling dish will crash no matter who shouts, and no matter what they say. It could be that Delingpole is just part of the catastrophe movie that plays out. And he is even predictable in some ways. I can see his role as deflecting blame, but denying the entire structure of science is a stretch for any performer, Now we have to wonder if he seeks to capture an audience and entertain, or trap an audience and pander.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have come to regard Delingpole as an adjective – something to be avoided or ignored. In this epic drama, he has become his own analogy.
typo – poor trapped = poor fool/man/idiot child etc
His readership must have been dropping. (Does the UK have a law against inciting violence?)
Apart from trolling, Delingpole has nothing to say. Absolutely nothing whatever. He is a vacuous prat.
If the Torygraph feels Delingpole contributes positively to their reputation, they are greatly mistaken. He is incapable of presenting an entertaining message. And for any reader with half a brain, he is incapable of presenting a factual message, a partially factual message, any message. Perhaps they keep him on because they think their future path is to transform into the Ukipgraph when the readership will be so pleasured by the headlines, the drivel printed underneath doesn’t matter so long as its got the proper quota of those phrases they like to read.
I’m with havinasnus on Delingpole. Ignore him. Even amongst Tories, he is the village idiot.
I webcited Delingpole’s article for posterity. Please link to this archived copy instead, otherwise we’re just giving Delingpole more traffic.
If you have a strong stomach, check out @MichaelEMann’s twitter feed. According to Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero), the problem is that Mann literally has no sense of humor; Milo later hilariously tells others “to learn not to be so fucking patronising.” Milo says Mann should apologise for his deeply pathetic lack of humor, and even helps Mann develop his sense of humor by regurgitating the baseless claims that Mann is somehow disgraced because his work has supposedly been completely discredited.
Words escape me too.
Milo’s that kind of guy. Just read this piece in the Guardian, and we all know who the “discredited” and “disgraced” person really is:
Milo’s response: “@antday I’ll assume, charitably, that you’re not taking sick pleasure in the failure of a startup and that you’re just trying to be cruel.”
Psychological projection wrapped in a tortilla of irony. As usual.
Ugly tie and coat.
I’d go so far as to suggest chaining the link in the post to your webcite…
— by Horatio Algeranon
“I’m mad as hell”
And “as a hatter”
As you can tell
It’s what’s* the matter
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” — Edgar Allan Poe
*Some may prefer “watts”
I’ll be fascinated to see whether the various Heartland Institute funded hacks (Watts et al) man-up and distance themselves from this squalor….
To his (partial) credit, Watts is; of course, he’s drawing equivalency to those on our side doing the same thing. Let’s see if we get an actual apology from Mr. Delingpole, hopefully while he can still write for the Telegraph.
I strongly agree with Horatio. These are the ravings of a madman. It seems to me that James Delingpole is insane (in the medical sense). Mad as a hatter.
Therefore it is probably best to direct our anger at the Telegraph.rather than at Mr D.
Poor old Delingfool.
You would say “Oh, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!” if only he had one. :)
After that, I think everyone should be done feeding this particular troll.
A drink with Monckton.
So Dungpole uses his matador cape with the a metaphorical flick of the wrist when he feels attacked in the arena that he calls home, the English language. What joy to attack the science on home turf, in the realm of the humanities instead of bothersome science. And what poses does this fighter of climate bull strike when he is in his element? Patronises the world by going into a primary school definition of a metaphor, proudly boasting his university credentials. This is the only problem. He is not the fighter, he IS the bull.
I, too, am speechless. Thought that’s in large part because I spent so much time while reading it trying not to throw up in my mouth that I was unable to form any words.
Delingpole here again hauls out his thesaurus, then plucks words from it at random, using them in ways more inventive than creative, thereby holding in thrall the entire world of mouth-breathing denialists–that is, at least the literate ones–who are certain that someone with such a dazzling vocabulary must surely know what he’s talking about. Not that that would be the first time they’ve been wrong…
For what it’s worth, I truly enjoy the part where Delingpole proclaims that his lack of formal scientific training means he’s better qualified than any scientist to comment on the climate change debate. As with so many other facets of denialism, that makes a lot of sense if you just don’t think about it much. Or at all…
Reblogged this on To the left of centre and commented:
Likewise. I’m also lost for words.
Sou yes we do (incitement to commit either assault or murder) but he is unlikely to be charged with it unless (or even if) someone is actually assaulted/murdered. Even then you would have to prove that someone actually took the guy seriously enough to act on his brain dead witless gibbering (only joking jimbo)
> lack of humor
Delingpole laughing all the way to the bank,
climate scientists and biologists mourning.
What happened to Earth?
Fermi Paradox, ha ha ha ha.
The level of logical and technical understanding in the UK has dropped dramatically since the time of the steam engine; the last years that has been enhanced by even more cuts into schooling, education and training; that’s to explain, not to excuse …
Here’s a metaphor:
— by Horatio Algeranon
They dance around the Delingpole,
And tangle up the facts
A web of lies, the final goal,
A totem pole for hacks.
And here’s the picture that goes with that.
If it’s any consolation, when Horatio originally wrote that (some time ago) it was a pretty general statement on the DelingpOlympics (DelingPolvaulters from all nations, no discrimination involved) — and Horatio actually had Americans (specifically in Congress) in mind.
In case anyone has not noticed, we Americans have more Delingpoliots per capita than any nation on earth. And, oddly enough, these folks seem to be damned proud of it.
Besides, the UK also has Steven Hawking, Paul Nurse (who Delingpolverized the Delingpole) and lots of other very smart people who have been very outspoken about the need to address climate change.
At any rate, this wasn’t intended as a sleight against Brits in general.
Oi. Some of us can walk and use a metaphor at the same time, you know.
Oops, post the reply in the wrong spot above.
— by Horatio Algeranon
The DelingpOlympics never ends
And if its any consolation
DelingpOlympians from every nation
Dance around the pole with friends
From the man who complained of ‘intellectual rape’ when Sir Paul Nurse asked him if he’d take the word of 2 doctors telling him he was fine over 98 who diagnosed a dangerous cancer. Funny how bullies are so quick to complain about how others treat them. Hateful idiots are pretty common, but this is as foul as anything I’ve ever read…and I’ve read pretty widely.
I see no point in reading Delingpole. He is a boring idiot. Dumber than owl droppings.
You insult owl droppings; they are informative of the dietary habits of their emitters.
Ignore: the less attention a narcissistic is given, the more extreme the outburst. Say anything and you reset the clock.
I assume most of us come here–like me–for the excellent insights into the changing climate
Delingpole likes the attention. Given that he lacks the substance that might earn it, I’d suggest not giving it to him.
Here, you need a breath of fresh air.
I treasure this clip of “intellectual rape” by an invited guest (Sir Paul Nurse) who was more than polite:
For context, the Guardian:
“The TV interview that tied James Delingpole’s tongue
“The bellicose Telegraph climate sceptic has complained to the BBC of being ‘intellectually raped’ on Horizon during an interview with Nobel prize-winner Sir Paul Nurse”
That said, it is to waste time and energy on this self-regarding megalomaniacal twit.
Delingpole is absolutely repugnant, along with the rest of his ilk.
Bloggers out to coordinate a massive response from their readers to the Daily Mail publishers and editors.
I assume, David, you mean the Telegraph?
Strange no one caught the classics referrence. This is a cheap thuggish version of Shakespeare’s speech said by Mark Antony at Caesar’s funeral where he kept saying he wasn’t trying to goad anyone into getting revenge but every word he said inflamed the mob more and more. I caught it right away.His pathetic and utterly transparent attempt at plausible deniability over inciting violence which IS what he wants.
“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.”
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It’s a good thing I wasn’t drinking anything, because that one made me do a spit-take.
The more I think about his parting comment the more I wonder what he’s really trying to say.
He appears to be admitting that he doesn’t really care what happens to global climate and he just wants to win a political/ideological battle with any argument that works, whether it’s sound or not.
“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.”
At least, he is right on this one: there is no scientific debate. Not since at least a few dozen years! Just some desparate deniers trying to create one.
Absolutely. Gavin Schmidt has made the same point a number of times – that the climate science “debate” is a proxy for a political debate from those who want to continue to burn fossil fuels.
The comment should be shoved back in the face of the climate cranks who defend this clown.
If the James Delingpole was any more intellegent he’d nearly make plant status. He’s not worth bothering with except with this (it’s been linked before, but it should be linked everytime anyont wants to comment on him): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU
Not worth reading. Not worth my attention. Certainly not worth your attention, Tamino.
Folks, if you want to link to a site, but don’t want the otherwise unwarrented attention to add to that site’s Google PageRank, just put rel=”nofollow” in the link.
We get this idiot down under via Murdoch’s The Australian newspaper. This article on Delingpole by Graham Readfearn is worth a read.
Ah, but MikeH, that’s the article that got Delingpole going off in his current diatribe.
the guy probably crashed his car, while trying the guinness unofficial world record of driving blind,.and has got it wrong it’s climatologists job to warn him of slippery roads. what I don’t understand is why telegraph thinks promoting silly world record attempts is good. anyway i think he didn’t manage a WR but this is very close the European one, we’ll have to wait and see what the judges say.
His behaviour makes perfect sense if the whole AGW thing is one gigantic fake set up by corrupt scientists. But surely he is not stupid enough to believe that? I’m thinking that maybe some unknown brain parasite leads otherwise sane people to take conspiracy theories seriously.
Actually,John,Delingpole’s behavior only makes ‘perfect sense’ if you have a toothless Press Council and very low evidence/quality thresholds for opinion writers. Everything he does is enabled by those factors.
Duly added to my article:
My take on one layer of Delingpole’s piece:
“It does rather beg the question, if he doesn’t mean the words he writes, then why didn’t he choose less inflammatory ones? One answer is distraction. If we focus on the rhetoric, we let the content slide. We fail to question the assertions he makes as ‘asides’…”
Thanks for passing this Delingpole tidbit along–I agree that it probably doesn’t merit a great deal of comment, but I do think it should be archived.
Excellent piece, Kevin.
Your pieces are always well researched and great at putting things into context.
Horatio likes putting them into goofytext:
— by Horatio Algeranon
My deniability is unexceeded
And cannot easily be defeated
My incredability stands alone
Enjoy my incredably deniable tone
Incredability is the ability to say incredible things day in and day out, which boosts one’s credibility among the undeniably incredible (of course).
I hope your compliments aren’t ‘goofy’ too, as I enjoyed that one. Thank you. (And for the versification, too.)
No, the compliments weren’t goofy (at least not intentionally).
And really should have said, ‘Likes putting things (in general) into goofytext” (
That ditty wasn’t really an attempt to versify your text in particular, but is really a pretty general comment on the approach of folks like Delingpole who, as several folks have mentioned, try to maintain “plausible deniability” ( which really isn’t the least bit plausible) while simultaneously boosting their “incredability” rating among deniers (which Horatio wrote about almost exactly a year ago in “Credible Incredability”)
Obviously, the latter two goals are contradictory, but that does not seem to bother the Delingpolites (who aren’t at all polite).
At some level attacks like this expose the reality that there really is nothing but vacuum on the denier side in such an obvious fashion that more moderate types on the fence are put off, I think–well hope anyway. This level of hate obviously has an agenda to anyone with even a partial mind wherever they may stand on the science.
Far more dangerous to my mind are the concerned/oh dear it will be expensive/reality distorters (without the hate)/etc.
For my part, I could only wish that the problem were that only Delingpole types were out there.
I’ve often posted Karl Rove’s 3 rules because they explain so much of the current continuing insanity in our public debates.
1) Attack your opponent’s strength from your weakness.
2) Accuse your opponent of doing what you’re doing.
3) Be worse than anyone can believe.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you James Delingpole. He obviously believes that the best defense is a good offense.
Thank you Jeffrey Davis for those three rules. I have had to wonder why so much effort is expended – not just here but several other places since Delingpole wrote the article – in refuting what is execrable blather. Does he deserve anything other than ridicule? http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-deceiver-will-never-lack-victims-for.html
I’ve gone a few rounds with Delingpole on his blog; he’s quite a piece of work.
Delingpole’s complaint seems to have been a signal to all the fake skeptics I argue with to ratchet up their invective. I’m getting private messages from one guy I argued with for years. He stopped posting a year ago, but as of Delingpole Day, he is attacking me with a level of vituperation I haven’t seen before. Please, somebody talk me out of thinking this is all being orchestrated by the Free Masons.
> anything other than ridicule?
Ridicule hardens people’s positions and increases polarization, hollowing out the political center. It’s very satisfying, very human, and very counterproductive if you’re hoping for better.
I don’t see how Delingpole as well as anyone who thinks that he is a serious critic of science could possibly be more intransigent than they are already. Also without doing a major study, I think there are probably many examples in history where ridicule has had a major beneficial effect on society, perhaps most recently coming from Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, the Wonkette and the Onion…who are following in august footsteps such as those of George Carlin, Hunter Thompson, WC Fields, Dorothy Parker, Mark Twain, Gilbert & Sullivan, Oscar Wilde, Jonathon Swift, and Chaucer…to name just a few.
I refuse to read the likes of Delingpole, MAnn Coulter, etc. Stupidity that concentrated has to diffuse outward. I see no problem with polarizing Delingpole. He is beyond redemption or education. The same goes for anyone who reads him as anything but the clownshoe he is. Ridicule is an appropriate response to the ridiculous.
Delingpolarizing is enough to make anyone’s hair stand on end.
If, as we suspect, climate change deniers aren’t holding reasoned opinions but are instead either political hacks, quacks, or dopes what is the point of arguing with them?
“He who touches pitch defiles himself.”
(and that’s what Delingpole et al. are all about — hardening positions, increasing polarization, hollowing out the political center where agreement may be possible)
Ah hahaha, like THIS:
Be careful what you wish for, Delingpole. You’ve accused Michael Mann of “having concocted arguably the most risibly inept, misleading, cherry-picking, worthless and mendacious graph – the Hockey Stick – in the history of junk science”.
Seems to me such a charge – if false – falls within the definition of libel under English defamation law. Are you really willing to test it – “preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap” – or are you simply masturbating in front of the mirror again (metaphorically speaking)?
My challenge is serious: the Dover trial, pitting creationism against mainstream evolution in American classrooms, demonstrated that legal proceedings, with formal rules of evidence and the right to cross-examine, are quite capable of adjudicating whether claims like yours can – or cannot – claim scientific validity (versus, in your case, the more likely status of bullshit).
What do you say, Delingpole? Say the word and let’s see if we can crowd-fund the day in court you claim to crave!
I once posted an innocous comment on his blog saying he was wrong and the scientists were right (or something like that) and got an amazingly childish reply by email that contradicted me in an inpleasant way. I should have saved it for posterity, but it goes to show how much of a handicap trying to appear intelligent is – people like Delingpole achieve much wider fame and influence by being barking mad. See also Monkton.
If anyone has looked at the latest polls, that may give you even more of an indication why things are getting so shrill from the denier camp. They are clearly losing their clout with the wider public bit by bit from their successes over the past half decade. Expect things to get more shrill as the IPCC5 release date approaches, even though I suspect it will still remain highly caveated in this iteration.
There is definitely a sense that mainstream media was burnt by giving attention to the outrageous lies of climate gate and the shrill cries around IPCC4. And the deniers have run out of tricks to obfuscate since all their basic weapons of misinformation have been thoroughly dismantled. Watching the deniers squirming in a corner is a pleasure.
Interested parties that understand German may also take a look at the, uhm, “interesting” comments of Hans von Storch and Reiner Grundmann about this article:
Grundmann even finds the article “lesenswert”: worth reading.
Yes. For me (and I am a good natured person) this finally seals the fact that Grundmann, behind his academic facade, is an intellectually lazy and ideologically (or careerist) driven character who lacks taste, judgement and a sense of what makes people in his profession useful.
I am still cutting von Storch some slack. He has contributed a LOT during his career, and might be forgiven the occasional black-out on his blog. Bad company and not being used to these new media things can easily make people look silly.
Remember this is the guy who had the audacity to lecture Sir Paul Nurse the Nobel prize winning geneticist and president of the Royal Society on……science! He tried to sell him on a super idea of his called peer-to-peer review (presumably so climate scientists could be hit with hail of rubbish they would have to respond to).
The guy is a nasty political ideologue best to be avoided.
James Delingpole should be careful what he wishes for because if perpetrating dangerous and irresponsible lies about climate change becomes a criminal offense he could find himself facing court.
I predicted some time ago, on this blog and others, that if it ever looked like effective ways of dealing with climate change might be found, climate scientists would be kidnapped and beaten, and eventually murdered. We had something like this happen in the United States a few times. Glenn Beck referred to “Tiller the Killer” over and over again, and gave his contact info, until a nutcase assassinated Tiller in his church. Sarah Palin showed Gabby Gifford’s face with cross-hairs over it a week before a psycho shot Gifford and killed six other people, one a little girl. No one is going after Beck or Palin. No one will go after Delingpole, either. Those backed by vast corporate money are pretty much immune to legal action.
And down under: Australia university reveals threats to climate scientists
I think you mean O’Reilly, mostly. Or both.
“Intellectual Rape”, I wonder if Delingpole used that excuse when he did poorly in his exams.