Once again, the opposition has come riding to the rescue, this time on the much discussed subject of climate change. The latest volunteer to make this blog’s point without me having to lift a finger is James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole, who has taken time off from telling anyone disagreeing with him that they’re stupid to pen a tribute to Donna Laframboise.
Still not fair or balanced
Who she? Well, Ms Laframboise is a Canadian who has a degree in womens’ studies, and maintains a website that proclaims “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ on global warming”. Her previous achievements are cited, with the clear inference that this makes her right. There is also the tired old canard about only wanting to have that debate which the other lot are trying to shut down.
Do I have a problem with that? Not a bit of it: if Ms Laframboise or anyone else wants to start a website and/or dissent from the consensual scientific view on climate change, fair play to them. And fair play to Del Boy too. But that doesn’t equate to them getting a free pass, which in Delingpole’s case includes his tendency to be easy on the facts while trowelling on the abuse.
You imagine I jest here? Check out Del’s post extolling the virtues of Ms Laframboise, where he talks about the apparent leaking of the latest Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report, otherwise known as AR5, “in time for honest blogging folk to unpick it before it gets spun by the usual alarmist suspects”.
That means not that Delingpole anticipates any kind of debate, honest or otherwise, because he has already decided that anyone of whom he approves is right, and all others are wrong, stupid, corrupt, dishonest and probably all of those things. But at least Del Boy has read his heroine’s analysis, hasn’t he? Er, no he hasn’t: “Obviously I haven't had time to sniff through various sections”.
Ah, the old “Interpreter of interpretations” bit again – which he duly confirms: “I'll just write it up when you find some interesting bits, embellished with a few of the choice adjectives I learned on my English course at Oxford”. So he isn’t bothered about the science – or lack of it – but only in taking conclusions from favoured sources, which will be cobbled together and topped with another welter of abuse.
So why does he need to keep on with this tedious one trick pony? “The IPCC has been infiltrated – and its scientific credibility damaged – by green activists from organisations like the WWF and Greenpeace”. Very good Del, the IPCC takes information and views from a very broad church – including energy companies and other industry players. So just the same old selective Delingpole approach.
And he wonders why less and less people are listening to him. Sad, isn’t it?