Yes it's a crowded field but Telegraph blogger James Delingpole finds the chutzpah to present two conflicting arguments within days of one another. James suggests corruption in this interview without presenting any actual evidence whatsoever noting (at 4:25) " You can buy a lot of vested interests a lot of businessmen a lot of politicians for that kind of money."
A couple of days later I suggest James sign himself up for George Monbiot's proposed register of interests for Journalists . James declines but blocks my twitter for the trouble . But over the next couple of days environmentalists (and Monbiot in particular) persistently trouble James's brain cell " It simply does not occur to them that those on the other side of the argument might actually hold the views they hold sincerely and honestly" James muses in another blogpost on the Daily Telegraph website.
So in the first case money corrupts , in the second case that same notion is "demonstrably untrue" .
Apropos Delingpole back in July he coined the term Polarbeargate in this blogpost about the travails of hard working scientist Dr Charles Monnett. In an article long on speculation and short on facts Delingpole noted that the investigation of Monnett would be "definitely one to watch." He was right about that. Monnett is now back at work, and the investigation floundered when no evidence turned up. Curiously , James Delingpole has not updated his readers about any of this "definitley one to watch" story.
Tweet
Showing posts with label james delingpole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james delingpole. Show all posts
Warning from 255 scientists ignored as world watches shopped cuddly polar bear pic
Back in May, 255 distinguished scientists wrote a letter about the climate and sent it to the esteemed journal Science.
The picture editor at Science unwisely chose to illustrate the letter with a photoshopped picture of a polar bear on an ice floe which is how Telegraph blogger James Delingpole came to tackle the story. Strong words from the scientists like "Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence." gave way to Dinglepole's deceiptful climate scientists narrative for the umpteenth time. Dinglepole argues that a doctored image shows the writer is being dishonest .
November; and Dinglepole's blog looks back at a year since the final nail in AGW's coffin that was the UEA hack illustrating his words with a picture of a tombstone to global warming clearly made using computer wizardry. Strangely Dinglepole does not deploy the same arguments he used earlier in the year.
*The Daily Telegraph in Australia even manages to get the story wrong twice; erroneously suggesting in their correction that Science had shopped the pic when it was clear ( from Dinglepole's blog and the Science article) that it was a stock shot credited to iStockphoto.com.
P.S. Have had a go myself, here's the results:
The picture editor at Science unwisely chose to illustrate the letter with a photoshopped picture of a polar bear on an ice floe which is how Telegraph blogger James Delingpole came to tackle the story. Strong words from the scientists like "Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence." gave way to Dinglepole's deceiptful climate scientists narrative for the umpteenth time. Dinglepole argues that a doctored image shows the writer is being dishonest .
The 255 scientists also put their names to the warning 'There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend' But it is the photoshopped polar bear story that went round the world, reproduced numerous times by bloggers and other newspapers. *
*The Daily Telegraph in Australia even manages to get the story wrong twice; erroneously suggesting in their correction that Science had shopped the pic when it was clear ( from Dinglepole's blog and the Science article) that it was a stock shot credited to iStockphoto.com.
P.S. Have had a go myself, here's the results:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)