Apologies to Wily Seacole Trout and others. But……

Occasional Ostrich

Thanks, Rod,
I too, from reading JD's blog posts, have this awful sense that scientific argument and reasoned debate is getting lost in the emotion surrounding the whole subject. But, hey, if somebody was upsetting your 'gravy train for life' what would your reaction be?

Edward McLaughlin

From this description of his work it seems he just rolls over any fact that doesn't suit his gut inclination.

Which if true, begs the question why you respect him at all as you suggested in your last post?

A person like that ain't worth the time of reading surely?

DougS

There's one huge thing missing from the Global Warming (that is the man-made and catastrophic type) proposition, viz.

Evidence!

Tubby Lights

Shut up, you two!

Woodbine 'Hideously White' Willy

Rod - get with it - you could be celebrating Black History Month. BBC Radio 7 certainly is. They're broadcasting some drivel by Benjamin Zephaniah every hour - and my radio has the marks to prove it. We'he had something to with bananas and pyjamas, another one about turkeys - I could go on but I'm getting faster at switching off.
His aspiration to be the Black Pam Ayres seems hopelessly optimistic.
I'm surprised your not celebrating this feast of multi-culti cuddliness.
Let's rediscover Mary Seacole!
* E McLaughlin, 10.45am: Are you sure you mean 'begs the question'?

Bill Rees

Rod, Delingpole explains in that blog why the snuff video wasn't funny. I still can't understand why you thought it was.
I think James' approach to the AGW industry is to reveal the quasi-religious fervency that underpins it. You don't need to be a Telegraph reader to be concerned by that.

Laurence

An area of polar bears the size of Wales is being lost every second because of all those toasters left on standby.

normanc

Have to agree with Rod Liddle on this one. Although the original piece was rubbish (it was almost as though he'd not read JD's article, or if he had he'd completely missed the point of it) the tit-for-tat reply JD made is over the top.

Would have been better to just let the original blog post die the fast death that all blog posts do rather than reheat it for tomorrows dinner.

As an aside, Rod & James' columns are the two I always turn to first. Both first rate writers and laugh out loud funny.

stephen maybery

Climate change has been happening since the formation of the planet, and I do not think that wicked creature, Homo Sapiens Sapiens was responsible for the last couple of ice ages, we had to wait for the Islington conscience to emerge begore we were saddled with that particular theory. I do not object to the morality of Islington, but I do get somewhat airiated when they insist on trying to stuff it down my neck.

Edward McLaughlin

Woodbine...Willy

I had thought so. Go on, what am I missing?

Laurence

"An area of polar bears the size of Wales is being lost every second because of all those toasters left on standby."

If we all agree to leave the toasters running, can the next area the size of Wales to be lost, be Wales?

Old Slaughter

I regretfully agree and found JDs post ill considered.

He is a writer, not a scientist.

Please do not fight any more though. Many more deserving jugulars to take chunks from.

John Holland

Rod- get with the plot.

First one decides, on the basis of your general inclinations, whether one believes, or disbelieves, AGW.

Then, one admits to NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that is contrary to your adopted position. To do otherwise would be a betrayal. Likewise, any acceptance of complexity or probability is against the rules.

Then, you accuse those who do the same as you, but from the other side, of being INTOLERANT AND HYSTERICAL.
It's a fun game for all the family, so long as the family are all solypsists.

Wily Seacole Trout

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

rod liddle

Bill Rees - yes, that's exactly what JD does, and does it very well indeed. But there's a quasi-religious fervour on the other side, too.

mitzcici

Laurence

There are polar bears the size of whales, no shit.

Laurence

Edward, whilst 'beg the question' has long since drifted far from its eytomology, I suspect Woody wants the phrase reserved for its proper meaning as a translation of petitio principii meaning to smuggle a conclusion in as a premise.

biggestaspidistra

it does seem as if you've been blogging about it for ages and ages, Rod

EyeSee

Rod, the analogy is that person A says 2+2=5 and person B cannot find a way to convince them they are wrong to assert such a thing. Even though we don't know enough about climate as yet to make bold claims, we do know that CO2 isn't responsible by concentration or duration. But evidence isn't enough for the 2+2=5 brigade. What they believe is more important than what is actually true. Some people find this hard to believe, that there must be evidence for Climate Change being caused by Man otherwise why say it? Why indeed, but the history of the Left is littered with such (the noble savage etc) and they are classified nicely as Intellectual Morons (Daniel J Flynn).

James is not 'as bad as the AGW lot in his fervour' he is merely frustrated that nothing that is presented to them impacts on their position. Jumping up and down frustrated.

Pete

Well said, Rod. Rational and thoughtful.

Delingpole should tick to being mildly amusing about unimportant television shows and steer clear of any subject requiring calm, lucid intellectual integrity.

Hugo Rifkind

I like what you're doing here. Yes.

yaosxx

Very poor Rod! The manner of your criticism gives the impression that you really haven't bothered to read any of JD's articles let alone make some valid attempt at criticising them - YOU'VE decided THIS IS WHAT THEY ALL THE ARTICLES SAY - SO THAT'S IT! -STUFF THEIR ACTUAL CONTENT!! It rather reminds me of when you were on "Come dine with me" and the somewhat bloated childish manner of your criticism of your fellow contestants - I remember thinking this from a man who writes critical articles that he expects people to take seriously!!
You know JD's answer to your first article really was much more thoughtful and subtle then you make it out to be - if you bothered to actually read it!

Woodbine Willy

Laurence - couldn't have put it better myself!
Which raises the question why it's called 'begging the question,' though.
Actually, I was just getting bored with the Dellboy v Rodders thing

Black Rod

Like a couple of kids squabbling in the playground. Frankly neither of you know what you're talking about. Empty vessels and all that.....

Edward McLaughlin

Laurence

Thanks but I think more people understand the phrase as I used it, than hark to its etymological base. So I'll be sticking with it.

Who's this Woody anyway?

DougS

Laurence
October 20th, 2010 11:40am

"An area of polar bears the size of Wales is being lost every second because of all those toasters left on standby"

You're out by orders of magnitude - Wales-sized areas of polar bears are disappearing (toasters to blame) every millisecond!

I know, because I've seen St Algore's Inconvenient horror movie.

David Ossitt

Rod.

Rod please do not take offence, as you are probably the one exception, but have you not noticed that the ant-AGW crowd are a much nicer bunch than the AGW lot?

Apart from the fact that the ant-AGW’s are a much more wholesome group, who are more pleasant to look at, they are able to put forward their argument in a reasonable way without having to hurl insults at the poor benighted AGW believers.

To paraphrase the old if it looks like a duck, the AGW argument, looks like a con, smells like a con, and recently has been proved to be a con, therefore it was, is now and will ever be a great big bloody con.

Baron

JD’s right, you wrong Rod. Just have patience abit, soon we shall learn that CO2 has bugger all to do with temperatures, the occasional correlation between the two series will be shown to be entirely spurious, akin to the one between the cases of dysentery in Scotland and the UK inflation in the 60s (or was it the 50s) last century. Trust me, I know, I’ve checked.

the thing doesn’t beg any question, it just begs to be kicked out of the public domain. We’ve got more pressing things to worry about like the aircraft less carriers and stuff.

John Holland

EyeSee- Good to describe all those scientists as "intellectual morons".
Your knowledge of the subject must be gargantuan, truly, awe-inspiringly vast to justify such a statement.

"WE know that CO2 isn't responsible by concentration or duration". No, YOU know it. Because you read it. And if you read the opposite? Would you say it was moronic? Why?

It may shock you to hear, but some people on the pro-AGW aren't left-wing. Are they morons too? On another post, you admitted you don't know much about science. You certainly don't let that get in the way of your need to lay down the truth on the subject.

Pete

Staggering logic David Ossitt.

Absolutely staggering.

David Ossitt

Rod quick take cover; you have just had praise from Hugo Rifkind, you are now in deep trouble.

Phil

Well let's face it Rod you consider yourself an expert on many things including black urban crime, politics in general, Diane Abbott, a whole host of assorted coffee table issues read on the tube and then forgotten about. There is nothing really that interesting that you have to say really. It's like reading a daily diary of a London cab driver. Give James some respect. At least what he talks about affects every aspect of life in this country when you see how much it is all going to cost us all. What you have to say is merely polemic drivel. Still I guess it pays the bills

Eli

Fascinating. One man's style is another man's content.

Jimmock

The thing that's so good about Delingpole is that he does not assume that the AGW debate is some kind of collegiate quibble over details, in which the establishment will eventually prevail by attrition. He does not credit the enemy with good faith.
And as you can tell from the hysterical reaction of his Green critics.... THEY DON"T LIKE IT UP 'EM.

John Holland

Jimmock- funny, someone with a greenish tint used the phrase "they don't like it up 'em" on the fragrant Mel's blog recently.
This provoked hurt and outrage amongst her sceptical chums, who claimed it was a typical example of crazed Marxist enviro-fascist meanness. And a sign that they were gay, and therefore probably diseased.

Luckily, we all know, from the many, many posts here, ( e.g. see Prof. Ossit) that (sing it) WE ARE NICE AND YOU ARE NASTY, NER NER NER ad infinbloodyitem.
So YOU were being intellectually rigourous and rather charmingly amusing.

It's so simple once you know the rules, it makes you wonder why those morons don't get it.

Rhydderch ap Crachach

Rod Liddle and his little rod,
Trying to pull benefit scrounging trout faced English women,
Rod Liddle and his little brain, trying to sell it to a fat Millwall butcher as faggot,
Rob Liddle and his little, little humour,
Trying to be clever about the weather and the ever changing climate....
Rod Liddle and his little right wing, shot the left as he was flying...
Crash, crash... let's eat the liddle tit.... oh... ther'es not much meat... and there ain't no brain.......

Rod Liddle.... is just......

.....little

pooop plop, plop....

Janstie

RL's blog on AGW and related articles remind me, as one who was educated and trained as a scientist and engineer, of the importance of objectivity and integrity in pursuit of the right answers. "Gravy trains" aside, we will know the absolute answers, but the cost of drawing the wrong conclusions through vested interest would be catastrophic!

It is essential, therefore, at the entrance to the debating hall, to hang up your ego with your hat!

Banana Wrangler

Ok this is clearly a manufactured blog versus blog campaign by you and James Delingpole. Now that George Monbiot has thrown in the towel, James needs a new nemesis and you need more traffic to your blog and as you are friends I am getting rather suspicious.

Alistair McDhui

As one of the quality scientists and engineers who have delved into the subject, I can attest to the fact that it has become the host for scientific inbreeding dwarfing the worst Norfolk can offer.

There are basic scientific failures which render the IPCC predictions absolutely worthless. This is recognised by insiders but because the subject is controlled by activists who, with their political and banking masters control the food chain, they keep quiet to survive.

My approach has been to find the Achilles Heel. It's the equation used to predict the cloud part of 'global dimming' without which predictions of high CO2-AGW are baseless. It was derived by Carl Sagan but he got it wrong. Get it right and not only does the CO2 hypothesis fail but you replace it with another AGW, probably low level tropical clouds affected by Asian industrialisation. Because it's self-limiting it probably stopped in 2003: scare over.

You've still got a problem with ocean acidification but as we're going to get very cold over the next 30 years, we will have bigger worries like how to pay for the nuclear power stations to keep the trains and sewage plants running for a population of 90 million freezing, starving people.

Oedipus Rex

Alistair McDhui - excellent post.

I know little of the science but have a layman's interest. It has always struck me that population increase - and particularly in Asia - will have vastly more impact on our lives than a few % decreases in CO2 emissions.
However, I have no problem with reducing them if it improves the quality of our lives.