James Delingpole and WUWT are inextricably linked in climate history. I broke the climategate story here at WUWT from my laptop at Dulles airport, Delingpole was the first in the MSM to pick it up. From there the story spread and the rest is history. The irony is that just hours before I had met James in person for the first time at a conference in Belgium, but I couldn’t say anything then because nobody was sure if what we had was real. In this video interview from reason.tv, Delingpole acknowledges WUWT’s role in getting it started. He also talks about his new book Watermelons, which I’d been given a copy of and have read. It is entertaining, sad, and funny all at once. Here’s what they say bout him in the YouTube description, and the video is well worth watching.
James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
Approximately 10 minutes.
Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.
h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue for the link
Isn’t it strange how the “pink” greens steadfastly refused to suggest population control as a means to limit CO2 production … instead going for the “capitalist” solution of oil-company funded wind energy.
Isn’t it also strange that the greatest capitalist superpower in the world … NO not the US … CHINA!!! Has a population control strategy but is doing next to nothing on the world’s “greatest problem”.
Personally, I think it is only prudent of any government to look ahead at the resources the next few generations will have, particularly food … requiring huge inputs of fossil fuel so food=energy… and try to manage the population so that future generations are least likely to have a problem. Obviously the first step on that policy is to manage immigration … a policy step that the BBC e.g. have seen as extremist right wing. Which makes me wonder why Delingpole has aligned himself with the Biased Broadcasters?
The simple fact is that at some point fossil fuels will run out (… or will they?) and personally, I think we know much less about our fossil fuel supplies than even the effect of CO2. E.g. temperatures may be questionable, but oil reserve figures are just fraudulent. Arguably (i.e. I could make a good case), a 50% reduction in fossil fuel would severely increase the pressure on humanity tending toward WWIII, IV, & V unless we saw a similar scaled reduction in population. Or to put it another way, we will have little choice about population reduction only how it is achieved: either by controlled population reduction planned well ahead or catastrophic population reduction through war and famine.
However as it has been several hundred years since we were last in a position of a catastrophic reduction in energy supplies, we really have no idea how such an event would play out. There is one suggestion I read that the fall of Rome was actually a result of diminishing agricultural output and a general depletion of mineral reserves. We can look back to history and see the famines and economic collapse, but we have little idea how much, if anything has changed/is the same …. let’s put it this way, I’m now doing a part time archaeology degree largely to understand the effects of such a scenario, and the worrying thing is that even archaeologists have little more clue than the rest of us about economics of the past.
So, this idea that population control is “wrong” is just absurd. Yes Delingpole is right that the same nasty people that used global warming will use the population issue to line their pockets and keep their government jobs, but just because nasty people make money, it doesn’t mean it is fundamentally wrong.
The real question like: “what is the right temperature for the world”, is “what is the right level of population for the world” …. and how on earth do we know … answers on a postcard?
Thanks to James and Anthony.
JD is now under that red button. good job that it does not work.
At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one.
———–
There is a saying that: if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
So if you imagine you are an expert in political manipulation and have no clue about science, then naturally enough you think all of science is about politics. It brings to mind the Stalinist position that everything is poltics. Seems Delingpole has absorbed that position from the ultraleft that he despises.
James is great but…Ahem…’best-selling’?
Whilst I completely understand where James is coming from. I detest ‘watermelons’ as yet another label, It will offend far more people than ‘warmists’ does, and worse using this world will alienate many grassroots environmentalists.
Whilst James had a point about the politics of it all, the un, ngo’s jumping on an agw bandwagon, to pursue many other agendas.. We must recognise that for many people that are scientists, activists, politicians, etc they are genuinely, sincerely concerned about AGW..
Using the label ‘watermelon’ to describe them will just make these people think sceptics are ‘climate cranks’
I really dislike ‘watermelon’ as a wholey negative label
Scottish Sceptic:
You seem to have made a typographical error in your post at September 28, 2011 at 1:34 am where you write:
“The simple fact is that at some point fossil fuels will run out”
Surely, you intended to write;
“The simple fact is that economic reality means fossil fuels will not run out during the existence of the human race.”
Richard
Dellers: call it “authoritarianism”.
To many syllables?
Barry sorry but look at the comments below the Vid if that is the “grass roots environmentalists”
and their way of debating then what could we ever call them that they won’t get offended by ? they call us the ‘d’ word with gay abandon but yet it’s only our side that has to give never them ,
sorry but when they figure out that hurling abuse at non believers is wrong and stop then they will earn some of the respect they think is their right !but not before in my eyes.
I am reading Watermelons at the moment. It’s wonderful! Thoroughly recommend it. James has a great punchy polemic style but backed up with a great deal of thought and research. All that and modesty too. I got my paperback version from James’ site but shipped from New York. I suspect it is being suppressed here in the UK. (Nigel Lawson says in the foreword to his Appeal to Reason that he had great trouble finding a publisher, despite having had previous books published.) Read the Book!
The battle is dead serious but some of you still think that removing “denier” from vocabulary will change the rules of the battle. Tragic naivety. What a shortsightedness…
Regards
Odd, but that Youtube video has no audio when I try to play it. Antone else have that problem?
Barry Woods says:
September 28, 2011 at 2:08 am
> I really dislike ‘watermelon’ as a wholey negative label
Ha,ha,ha! Another sanctimonious denier.
> We must recognise that for many people that are scientists, activists, politicians, etc they are genuinely, sincerely concerned about AGW..
The correct form:
We must recognise that for many people that are scientists, activists, politicians, etc they are genuinely, sincerely intelligent AND sold-off. They know where the tangible fruits are (read: money).
BTW. Writing such tripes as above and what’s worse thinking that way is offensive for the “scientists, activists, politicians, etc” as it assumes they are stupid.
> Using the label ‘watermelon’ to describe them will just make these people think sceptics are ‘climate cranks’
Far fetched conclusion. Some says that “green” is unripe “red”. Is this libel too?!
Regards
Scottish Sceptic: “The real question like: “what is the right temperature for the world”, is “what is the right level of population for the world” …. and how on earth do we know … answers on a postcard?”
This is actually rather a simple calculation. You take the area of a region and divide by the target level of consumption (expressed as hectares and hectares per person, say). Result is the number of people the region can support.
The calculation, done thusly, gives a range of ways of arriving at a sustainable population. Lots of poor people or a few rich people at the extremes, and somewhere in the middle the porridge is just right.
Get people to choose their level of consumption and the “target” population size follows. You can even build in increases in productivity, if you think they are realistic.
I’m not yet sure how to deal with small countries with dense populations, like Singapore. Maybe this is where economics comes in, or where a “greater” regional approach is needed.
The next question is how you get there without being evil.
Mat. How will ‘they’ figure out hurling abuse is wrong, if you hurl it back..
Grass roots don’t bother commenting anywhere(just hardcore do this), they are just too busy getting on with their lifes.
I find it quite embarrasing to be associated with some comments here. Please take a moment to see how you come across to people that are just curious
Barry Woods says:
September 28, 2011 at 2:08 am
Sorry Barry but, it is an emotive label. A bonus being, it’s damn funny too.
All watermelons already believe “sceptics are ‘climate cranks’” – especially vested “scientists, activists, politicians” who believe in Catastrophic AGW. Nothing is likely to convert them, up to and including auto-da-fé . No matter how we describe their bitterness they will revile us.
Equally, they will never forgive us.
Our hope is to inform those who remain “on the fence” and expose, torment and ridicule EVERY watermelon on the funny-farm at EVERY opportunity. These goals are not mutually exclusive (thank you Josh).
Being a “grassroots environmentalist” I demand my right to broadcast my anger at the hijack of science, misdirection of cash and effort from real, curable problems and the outright lies of the watermelons who cause these ills to continue in the face of mounting evidence that their phantasms are more than wrong. Using all instruments at my disposal.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Delingpole joins most American conservatives in missing the point about the Greenies, and about Obama as well. He thinks they’re Marxists with a goal of power. Nope. Some of the lower-level functionaries may be fully Marxist, but all the top folks in all the elite institutions have been Gramscians for at least 20 years now.
Control is a secondary effect for them. Their two goals have always been (1) enrich the rich and kill the poor, and (2) create total chaos. Their utopia is Somalia, not the Soviet Union.
@LazyTeenager says:
September 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
“There is a saying that: if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.”
Michelangelo would probably differ. Doesn’t look much like a nail to me, but he had intelligence and imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29
Berlin Wall fell in 1989. UN IPCC established in 1988. Spot the mistake in JD’s reasoning…
Good interview.
I hope people ‘keep it nice’, as Anthony requests that we do on this blog.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.
– H. L. Mencken
I think the comments here so far about me really make my point..
Especially the one where I’m called a sanctimonous denier..
I’m about to have lunch with my wife and three year.
old. So rather than explain in detail, if anyone wants to see what a big denier I am,
I suggest they Google – “Barry woods” climate –
LazyTeenager says:
September 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
“So if you imagine you are an expert in political manipulation and have no clue about science, then naturally enough you think all of science is about politics. It brings to mind the Stalinist position that everything is poltics.”
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/events/2009/june-8-10-2009-the-great-transformation-2013-climate-change-as-cultural-change?set_language=en
Can someone explain to me why it is considered evil to think that popotation growth should be limited or even reversed. I find contries/cities with high population density to be highly uncomfortable. Yes, I’m sure the planet could support many more people, but I struggle to understand why that is desirable. While I agree with many of the CAGW sceptical viewpoints, I’m slightly puzzled about the idea that even more people is something to strive for.
Scottish Sceptic says: @ur momisugly September 28, 2011 at 1:34 am
“Isn’t it strange how the “pink” greens steadfastly refused to suggest population control as a means to limit CO2 production …”
No it is not strange at all. At least not here in the USA. The welfare moms popping out babies every year to keep those government checks coming are a HUGE part of the Democratic voter base. Why the heck would you tick off your voter base???
If you want to cut the birth rate in the industrialized nations get rid of welfare per child and tax breaks per child not that the first world needs to cut their birth rates. African countries have the highest total fertility rate followed by South America.
Of Course the numbers are some what inflated because they are “…a figure for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman. This indicator shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, ….” (Actually it is 2.1 births per woman)
The USA has a nicely balanced birth rate while countries in the EU as well as China have shrinking populations. “…Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years….” See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html (statistics and quotes)
The above stats need to be balance by the number of babies who die before their first birthday: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Oh and if you want to know one of the reasons for the wars in the middle east and Afghanistan, there is this from the CIA. War of course is a great way to reduce population and get rid of the dangerous young males.
“…Despite the general trend toward aging, many developing nations will experience substantial youth bulges: the largest proportional youth populations will be located in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iraq….” https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/Demo_Trends_For_Web.pdf
(Youth = lots of energy, no wisdom)
The only people who really seem to care about (C)AWG are all “fat, dumb, and happy.” I.e., they lead rich and comfortable lives. The majority of the world’s population who struggle to earn a living (or simply to keep living another day) are generally less (or un-) concerned about the slight amount of warming that has occurred over the past 100 years.
I could argue that these “warmists” are not so much “pro-green” as they are “anti-poor-people.” Obviously, they would not put their own views in these terms, but when you look at all the “unintended consequences” that the (C)AGW and green movement have caused – what other judgment can you reach?