Why Is James Delingpole So Rude To Warmists?

He has a good reason

It was prompted when I very vocally expressed my disgust at one of the standard phrases trotted out by Warmists and other eco-loons in these debates (as, of course, inevitably, they did again on Sunday): the one about “preserving the planet for future generations”.

The reason this cant phrase makes me want to throw up every time I hear it is that it’s such a grotesque inversion of reality. It’s not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It’s not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those “future generations” to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?

Good points. I’d also point out that the leaders in the Warmist movement also tend to be some of the worst environmentalists by there own standards. Make sure to read the whole thing, which also includes a excerpt from Autonomous Mind

Thus says AM, no matter what the “science” reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political –and economic corporatist –agenda. On that front is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change. Exactly the same sentiment is reflected in a report by Dennis Ambler.

That is one of the reasons I attack AGW from a political point of view, why I deride it, and don’t bother with the “science” all that much: it’s not about science, and the hard left will simply transform the debate. They’ve already tried with notions such as “sustainability” and “biodiversity”. It’s all about power, control, and doing things with Other People’s money, not about science and the environment.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Why Is James Delingpole So Rude To Warmists?”

  1. Trish says:

    Excellent! And, I am going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that our future, having nothing to do with manmade anything, is not promised. If the past billion years is of any historical, geological proof, we could, should and most likely will have a catastrophic event/s occur (perhaps not in our lifetimes) that will either wipe us out totally, or that will send us back to the stone ages for a long while. Regardless of anything we do now or in the future, we cannot prevent this. We cannot cap Yellowstone, or any of the other super volcanoes, we cannot prevent the tectonic plates from shifting when they begin to do so in earnest. (even if we stop all fracking!) And the result of any one of these events, would be to probably cause another, like dominoes.
    So quit yer whining AGW’ers, pull up a chair and have a nice cold brew!

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Yes, but global warming will cause an increase in the number of hurricanes and the intensity!

    Or maybe not.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12795 access attempts in the last 7 days.