What do you think?
Rate this book
Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future
British author James Delingpole tells the shocking story of how an unholy mix of junk science, green hype, corporate greed and political opportunism led to the biggest - and most expensive - outbreak of mass hysteria in history.
In Watermelons, Delingpole explains the Climategate scandal, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, showing that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red.
Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement's pathetic record of apocalyptic predictions, from the "population bomb" to global cooling, which failed to materialize. He reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, "rooted in hatred of the human species, hell bent on destroying almost everything man has achieved".
Delingpole gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the "crisis" has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. "Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this 'crisis'", he writes.
At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. Green on the outside, red on the inside, the liberty-loathing, humanity-hating "watermelons" of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
Delingpole is the bestselling British writer who helped expose the Climategate scandal in his Daily Telegraph blog. He also writes a column for The Spectator . His other books include 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy (Regnery, 2010) and Welcome to Obamaland (Regnery, 2009).
In Watermelons, Delingpole explains the Climategate scandal, the cast of characters involved, their motives and methods. He delves into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, showing that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red.
Watermelons shows how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism. Delingpole mocks the green movement's pathetic record of apocalyptic predictions, from the "population bomb" to global cooling, which failed to materialize. He reveals the fundamental misanthropy of green ideology, "rooted in hatred of the human species, hell bent on destroying almost everything man has achieved".
Delingpole gives a refreshing voice to widespread public skepticism over global warming, emphasising that the "crisis" has been engineered by people seeking to control our lives by imposing new taxes and regulations. "Your taxes will be raised, your liberties curtailed and your money squandered to deal with this 'crisis'", he writes.
At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. Green on the outside, red on the inside, the liberty-loathing, humanity-hating "watermelons" of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.
Delingpole is the bestselling British writer who helped expose the Climategate scandal in his Daily Telegraph blog. He also writes a column for The Spectator . His other books include 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy (Regnery, 2010) and Welcome to Obamaland (Regnery, 2009).
314 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
57 people are currently reading
492 people want to read
About the author
James Delingpole
17 books35 followersJames Delingpole is a British journalist and novelist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
April 6, 2020
Delingpole is on to their game. Well done.
June 21, 2012
A FIVE-STAR FART IN A WINDSTORM.
“Evil men don’t get up in the morning saying ‘I’m going to do evil.’ They say: ‘I’m going to make the world a better place’.” [Christopher Booker]—loc 2940
In a time of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and PNS (post-normal science), I’m still stuck, back there in antiquity, wrestling with the idea of ‘post-nasal drip’. When I’ve resolved that, perhaps I can move on to grappling with ‘Science for a Post Normal Age’. But, then, perhaps I really won’t want to. I kind of liked the ‘Normal Age’ science, myself.
But thank-you, James Delingpole, for the credible and virulent flatulence of your excellent, enlightening, amusing, discursive book: ‘Watermelons: the Green Movement’s True Colors’. I can only hope that many, better, younger, and smarter than me, will also read it—and, better still, that they get it.
Thank-you, big time, for your fortitude and fortissimo in farting into the Green movement’s windstorm. Perhaps you’re only tilting at windfarms, but I could still wish to be counted as, at least, one more, grateful, ‘beneficent presence’. It’s books like ‘Watermelons’ that keep me hoping the ‘Stygian void’ can still be put off a while longer. Maybe.
Recommended to all for whom thinking trumps feelings, and other cockeyed optimists.
“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” [C.S. Lewis] loc 2940
Kindle Edition, 6,593 locs. (is there a Kindle reader out there who can tell me what a ‘loc’ is? What is it equal to? It doesn’t seem to be a ‘page’, a ‘paragraph’, or a ‘screen’. I can’t figure out just what it ‘is’.)
“Evil men don’t get up in the morning saying ‘I’m going to do evil.’ They say: ‘I’m going to make the world a better place’.” [Christopher Booker]—loc 2940
In a time of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and PNS (post-normal science), I’m still stuck, back there in antiquity, wrestling with the idea of ‘post-nasal drip’. When I’ve resolved that, perhaps I can move on to grappling with ‘Science for a Post Normal Age’. But, then, perhaps I really won’t want to. I kind of liked the ‘Normal Age’ science, myself.
But thank-you, James Delingpole, for the credible and virulent flatulence of your excellent, enlightening, amusing, discursive book: ‘Watermelons: the Green Movement’s True Colors’. I can only hope that many, better, younger, and smarter than me, will also read it—and, better still, that they get it.
Thank-you, big time, for your fortitude and fortissimo in farting into the Green movement’s windstorm. Perhaps you’re only tilting at windfarms, but I could still wish to be counted as, at least, one more, grateful, ‘beneficent presence’. It’s books like ‘Watermelons’ that keep me hoping the ‘Stygian void’ can still be put off a while longer. Maybe.
Recommended to all for whom thinking trumps feelings, and other cockeyed optimists.
“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” [C.S. Lewis] loc 2940
Kindle Edition, 6,593 locs. (is there a Kindle reader out there who can tell me what a ‘loc’ is? What is it equal to? It doesn’t seem to be a ‘page’, a ‘paragraph’, or a ‘screen’. I can’t figure out just what it ‘is’.)
September 27, 2012
A non-scientist who knows a lot more about climate change than Warmists seem to. I say 'seem to' because they know and sometimes admit it's not about the science. Delingpole is, however, extremely funny and wide awake to the ploys of the Watermelons (Green-on-the-outside-but-RED-on-the-inside types).
He shows in modern, clear, hilarious prose the real issues around climate change (note they shifted away from using 'global warming' as much after it stopped warming and started using 'climate change' instead; well, what do ya know, the climate tends to change!) There's some science in here but Delingpole sticks mostly to exposing the Green movement (which is straight-out a political one) with its own statements and actions.
Loved it.
He shows in modern, clear, hilarious prose the real issues around climate change (note they shifted away from using 'global warming' as much after it stopped warming and started using 'climate change' instead; well, what do ya know, the climate tends to change!) There's some science in here but Delingpole sticks mostly to exposing the Green movement (which is straight-out a political one) with its own statements and actions.
Loved it.
October 20, 2017
I have a new found respect for Mr. Delingpole for this book is not only well researched and well written but also deeply satirical. So you will enjoy this book from that vantage also.
I write this review as someone who deeply cares about the Environment. I used to be into Greenpeace and a particular magazine called "The Ecologist" that was run by the now Conservative politician Zac Goldsmith. These guys really screwed with my head and sent me down a deep path of resentment towards all things modern, towards progress and economic growth itself.
I have now grown out of that madness and this book was the one that put the final nail in a coffin that should have been buried years ago. Thanks to James, this was finally done.
A good read for anyone sensing a rot deep inside the bowls of the Enviro-movement.
I write this review as someone who deeply cares about the Environment. I used to be into Greenpeace and a particular magazine called "The Ecologist" that was run by the now Conservative politician Zac Goldsmith. These guys really screwed with my head and sent me down a deep path of resentment towards all things modern, towards progress and economic growth itself.
I have now grown out of that madness and this book was the one that put the final nail in a coffin that should have been buried years ago. Thanks to James, this was finally done.
A good read for anyone sensing a rot deep inside the bowls of the Enviro-movement.
March 24, 2017
I confess to being a warmist skeptic and critical of the enviro-communist movement. But I found this book lacking in its supposed refutation of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AWG). And comically inconsistent in its accusations of pseudo-arguments in support of AGW.
Accuses his opponents of guilt by association arguments and in the next sentence engages in reductio ad Hitlerum. Well Hitler wanted to reduce the use of chemicals in farming…
Accuses his opponents of alarmism and being doomsdayers and in the next sentence asserts that the alarmists proposed solutions will be the end of society as we know it.
Accuses his opponents for being driven by emotion and resembling a pseudo religion and in the next sentence asserts that this is nothing less than a struggle between good and evil.
And so it goes on…
This is a terrible book, no other word for it. But just like Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola it has some value in between all the hyperbole. Delingpole does show how the so called green movement is politically motivated and massively financed from governmental and supra- governmental organizations like the EU and UN. In no way, shape or form is this a movement of concerned individuals objectively looking at the facts. Rather it is unscientific and militantly opposed to diverging opinions and debate.
So, if for nothing else, Delingpole outlines beautifully how one should approach this problem whether you are a skeptic or not, too bad he didn’t take his own advice.
“On one side are the skeptics. They value empiricism, openness, and freedom of expression. None of them denies that climate changes naturally. Few, if any, deny that human activity may have some influence on the climate. But they are concerned that the connection between human activity and climate change may have been dramatically overstated by various interest groups. Of course, if the planet really is threatened by man-made climate change, then they will be as eager as anyone else to take remedial action. So far, however, they are not convinced that the evidence of human impact justifies the hugely expensive measures being adopted to 'combat AGW'.”
Accuses his opponents of guilt by association arguments and in the next sentence engages in reductio ad Hitlerum. Well Hitler wanted to reduce the use of chemicals in farming…
Accuses his opponents of alarmism and being doomsdayers and in the next sentence asserts that the alarmists proposed solutions will be the end of society as we know it.
Accuses his opponents for being driven by emotion and resembling a pseudo religion and in the next sentence asserts that this is nothing less than a struggle between good and evil.
And so it goes on…
This is a terrible book, no other word for it. But just like Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola it has some value in between all the hyperbole. Delingpole does show how the so called green movement is politically motivated and massively financed from governmental and supra- governmental organizations like the EU and UN. In no way, shape or form is this a movement of concerned individuals objectively looking at the facts. Rather it is unscientific and militantly opposed to diverging opinions and debate.
So, if for nothing else, Delingpole outlines beautifully how one should approach this problem whether you are a skeptic or not, too bad he didn’t take his own advice.
“On one side are the skeptics. They value empiricism, openness, and freedom of expression. None of them denies that climate changes naturally. Few, if any, deny that human activity may have some influence on the climate. But they are concerned that the connection between human activity and climate change may have been dramatically overstated by various interest groups. Of course, if the planet really is threatened by man-made climate change, then they will be as eager as anyone else to take remedial action. So far, however, they are not convinced that the evidence of human impact justifies the hugely expensive measures being adopted to 'combat AGW'.”
April 26, 2012
This is a superb & fascinating book, well researched & presented ... a must read not only for 'Climate Change' sceptics but for anybody that's interested in the stories & science behind the headlines that we are force fed on a daily basis .. the sheer audacity of the 'Greens' is simply breathtaking ... the questions are 'Why is this lie still believed on such a global scale' & ' What can be done about it' ... if publications such as this and the endless evidence provided to the contrary, plus the Climategate scandal, can't derail the AGW scare story then what can ??
June 3, 2012
Just finished Watermelons, James Delingpole's excellent book on the "green" movement and how it has free-fallen from people concerned about clean air to an anti-Western, anti-industrial, anti-Capitalist, anti-human Socialist movement that has grabbed on to the fallacy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and turned it into a all-purpose bludgeon to force people to abandon civilisation and liberty in return for... nothing, really.
Read more
Read more
January 7, 2013
I found this book to be a must read for anyone with questions (and even if you don't) about what is behind the government push to fix climate change. It opened me to how most of what is being pushed is driven by politicians and your professional activists without any valid science behind their claims. This is not to say that certain science professionals have not made claims regarding the cause, it is just that their claims are often not validated. Great read - very disturbing subject and one that unfortunately is not going to go away.
March 11, 2012
On the psychology of environmentalism and how it is destroying out civilisation. Must read. Watermelons = Green on the outside , Red on the inside.
March 28, 2013
I really think that the difficult part of the environmental debate at the moment is admitting that there is a real problem with both the data, and the politics. Once I did that. Read the data, listened to the argument from both sides, I realised that this is another area of extreme uncertainty.
If you don't read both sides of the story, and you stay in the four channel world of australian media, then you wind up saying just what you are told to.
If you don't read both sides of the story, and you stay in the four channel world of australian media, then you wind up saying just what you are told to.
February 16, 2013
Excellent.
August 26, 2020
Today's climate change alarmists are like yesterday's population bomb predictors. Bad science driving awful policies that are bad for people and the planet. Delingpole is devastating and hilarious.
June 19, 2019
Climate skeptics usually know their stuff - we have to defend our view rigorously! Here though the narrative focuses to a large extent on the politicalization of the climate question. That is an interesting position for me, who has previously only looked at the actual science, and the psychological question of how people buy into stories (true or false).
Delingpole's interest is clearly much more political. He's on the right wing, but not so far from center as the hard left is. He tries to show how the far left has usurped the position of eco-warrior and is subverting it to the end of a big, left wing, world government.
The issue is definitely politicised, but to that extent?
It's also interesting to see how he, like so many skeptics, is so often shut down and marginalised, for some very rational questions he has about the climate alarmism that has swept much of the world's agenda.
Delingpole's interest is clearly much more political. He's on the right wing, but not so far from center as the hard left is. He tries to show how the far left has usurped the position of eco-warrior and is subverting it to the end of a big, left wing, world government.
The issue is definitely politicised, but to that extent?
It's also interesting to see how he, like so many skeptics, is so often shut down and marginalised, for some very rational questions he has about the climate alarmism that has swept much of the world's agenda.
August 18, 2015
While I did not like the writing style of Mr. James Delingpole, I did rather enjoy being presented with new perspectives of old 'facts'. As a high school student learning about climate change now, and of course, learning about how it IS happening, this book was a bit of a refresher as it looked at how scientists the world over, have been distorting evidence to predict climate change, and subsequently cause, as the author puts it, mass hysteria.
There are still multiple questions left unanswered, and queries such as, if he is saying that these scientists are lying about their evidence, with new evidence that he presents in the book, how do we know he isn't lying with his counter-argument evidence?
For now, I'm a realist and a believer. A mixture of both can't be healthy for either side but it is for me.
There are still multiple questions left unanswered, and queries such as, if he is saying that these scientists are lying about their evidence, with new evidence that he presents in the book, how do we know he isn't lying with his counter-argument evidence?
For now, I'm a realist and a believer. A mixture of both can't be healthy for either side but it is for me.
August 21, 2020
This book is a must read to open our eyes on the illusion of climate change and the dust and dirt behind the movement. A world of lies and manipulation driven by a global agenda for decades. Extremely well researched and referenced from published sources including the “climategate’ expose of emails from The Who’s who of the environmentalist club. ‘Greta Thurnberg’ should read this book quickly before she gets emotional at the world economic forum the next time talking of listening to scientists and all the support data behind it. Author’s claims and evidence with hard facts on this subject shared a decade back validated by the latest documentary produced by Michael Moore ‘ Planet of the Humans _2020‘ exposing the green energy movement completely... this book is a must read for all and kudos to James Delingpole’ for riding the wave of ultimate truth against all odds....
Read
September 24, 2016I'm updating this quite some time after having read the book (Sept 2016), and to my surprise can't find any reference to having read it amongst my notes - except that I highlighted a great deal of it when I read it on Kindle.
Delingpole's style is witty and acerbic; no prisoners taken at any point here. He strikes the high and low, and wastes no time in undercutting their supposed authority.
If you've ever had any doubts about the Green Movement and/or climate change, this is a good place to start. Delingpole amasses plenty of material to show just how false the Greenies are in their supposed concerns for humankind (the planet is far more important to them), and he's equally good in showing up the lies and falsehoods within the Global Warming/Climate Change 'science.'
Delingpole's style is witty and acerbic; no prisoners taken at any point here. He strikes the high and low, and wastes no time in undercutting their supposed authority.
If you've ever had any doubts about the Green Movement and/or climate change, this is a good place to start. Delingpole amasses plenty of material to show just how false the Greenies are in their supposed concerns for humankind (the planet is far more important to them), and he's equally good in showing up the lies and falsehoods within the Global Warming/Climate Change 'science.'
July 18, 2020
Funny and entertaining view on climate change alarmism. Delingpole, correctly in my opinion, thinks that the climate alarmists push their climate catastrophe so hard because they see it as a way to frighten the public into giving up their freedom for security. In this way they can force a worldwide socialist government.
It is the only thing that makes any sense. There is no direct evidence of an impending climate disaster, whether man-made or natural.
It is the only thing that makes any sense. There is no direct evidence of an impending climate disaster, whether man-made or natural.
June 30, 2013
Very Enlightening.
The new religion of the Communists is Green, watermelons is a good term with them and their worship of Gaia will destroy us.
It is a good Book for anybody that thinks the Green Environmental movement is just a bunch of tree hugging hippies, for this book shows their true colours and plan for the world.
The new religion of the Communists is Green, watermelons is a good term with them and their worship of Gaia will destroy us.
It is a good Book for anybody that thinks the Green Environmental movement is just a bunch of tree hugging hippies, for this book shows their true colours and plan for the world.
February 8, 2017
To make decisions you need to read both sides of an argument. A thoroughly good read
January 31, 2016
BRILLIANT - read it and read it now!
October 27, 2014
An explanation of the origins of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AWG) controversy by a journalist who investigated Climategate. The author counts himself among the rank of climate skeptics. He contends that the Green movement is led by “Watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.” Their enemy is capitalism. He says “the reason I came to distrust AGW theory is because I recognized it as part of a familiar socio-political pattern: the advance of government through stealth... The people who tell you that AGW is a near-certainty are a bunch of liars, cheats and frauds.”
“Climategate is really about the systematic abuse of the 'scientific method.' Therein lies the real scandal of Climategate: it's a case of scientists breaking the rules of science and behaving instead like political activists. We see them 'cherry-picking' data that supports their theories and burying data that doesn't. We see them drawing conclusions based on gut-feeling rather than evidence.”
Like so much in politics, if you want to understand what is going on, just follow the money. “Ballpark figure for the amount of money Big Carbon has spent encouraging AGW skepticism: call it $20 million a year over a ten-year period. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? At least it does until you realize how much money goes to the other side of the debate. $126 billion – World Bank estimate of carbon trading industry turnover in 2008... U.S. government spending on climate research and technology since 1989 had amounted to $79 billion... The amount spent on climate funding since 1989 by the European Union well over $100 billion.”
Quoting Michael Crichton: “Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means the he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.”
“Science is never settled. That's not how it works... in order to be properly scientific, a theory (or hypothesis) must be 'falsifiable': that is, it must be capable of being proven false either through observation or experiment.”
“'Climate change', in other words, has little if anything to do with 'science' as you or I might understand the concept. It's not a genuine problem to be solved, but a handy excuse – with a fashionable green patina – to advance a particular social and political agenda under the cloak of ecological righteousness and scientific authority... This is a debate that skeptic scientists can never possibly win, no matter how apparently overwhelmingly persuasive evidence they produce. That's because the debate was never about 'the science' in the first place. It was, is and always will be about politics.”
“What 'the science' has shown is that while levels of man-made CO2 have continued to rise as industrial output around the world has increased, global temperatures have not. The world stopped warming in 1998. This is important. What it means, essentially, is that the theory claiming that catastrophic and unprecedented global warming is linked with man-made CO2 has been (in science-speak) 'falisified'.”
Yet despite this halt in the rise of global temperature, the IPCC reports have grown increasingly alarmist: “The observed increase could be largely due... to natural variability. (1990)” “The balance of the evidence suggests discernible human influence on climate. (1996)” “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. (2001)” “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-twentieth century is very likely [= 90% probable] due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. (2007)”
The author traces the roots of the Climate Change agenda to the early environmental movement with leaders such as Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner, Harrison Brown, and the Club of Rome . The concepts were implemented by UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong. Strong's 1992 report known as Agenda 21 “effectively puts an end to national sovereignty, abolishes private property, elevates Nature above man, and places a host of restrictions on what we've come to accept as our most basic freedoms – everything from how, when and where we travel to what we eat... What you must realize is that Agenda 21 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The reason governments found it easy enough to sign is because it contains no legally binding obligations. But then, it doesn't need to, for its apparently voluntary codes can be enforced – and are regularly, scrupulously enforced – via a mechanism over which sovereign governments have little control anyway: the vast, labyrinthine, democratically unaccountable behemoth that is the United Nations... Agenda 21 is enforced mainly at the local government level. Here is how it works: Local environmental activists create a Local Agenda 21 (LA21) lobby group. Spouting the mantra 'Think Global, Act Local', they urge their town/city/district government to sign up to the 'voluntary' code of Agenda 21... The biggest take-up has been in the U.S., where over 600 districts have signed up. Welcome to the passive-aggressive world of global watermelons – socialism hiding behind the guise of environmentalism.”
“On one side are the skeptics. They value empiricism, openness, and freedom of expression. None of them denies that climate changes naturally. Few, if any, deny that human activity may have some influence on the climate. But they are concerned that the connection between human activity and climate change may have been dramatically overstated by various interest groups. Of course, if the planet really is threatened by man-made climate change, then they will be as eager as anyone else to take remedial action. So far, however, they are not convinced that the evidence of human impact justifies the hugely expensive measures being adopted to 'combat AGW'. Indeed they believe the measures are doing harm out of all proportion to the nature of the problem. This is why they are prepared to lay their necks on the line and speak up with their unfashionable views, even at the risk of their careers and public opprobrium.”
“On the other side are the alarmists. They believe that human activity – especially through the release of CO2 – is having a dangerous effect on the climate, and perhaps other things besides, such as ocean acidification. They are convinced their cause is so just and urgent that it relieves them of the need to observe normal standards of probity and decency. In order to Save the Planet, they tacitly accept that it is okay to: rig public inquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.”
“AGW is a religion. It has its high priests and prophets: Al Gore, James Hansen. It has its temples: the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC. It has its warrior monks: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ed Begley Jr. It has its concept of original sin – the Carbon Footprint – which can be bought off with the help of indulgences – Carbon Offsets. It is motivated by an overwhelming guilt that we are all sinners but that we can redeem ourselves through mortification of the flesh. And most important of all it is based on no hard evidence whatsoever. Only on faith. Pure, blind faith. This lack of factual basis ought to be a weakness. Unfortunately, though, it's what gives the religion such enduring strength, for how can anyone ever disprove something that was never provable in the first place?”
“Climategate is really about the systematic abuse of the 'scientific method.' Therein lies the real scandal of Climategate: it's a case of scientists breaking the rules of science and behaving instead like political activists. We see them 'cherry-picking' data that supports their theories and burying data that doesn't. We see them drawing conclusions based on gut-feeling rather than evidence.”
Like so much in politics, if you want to understand what is going on, just follow the money. “Ballpark figure for the amount of money Big Carbon has spent encouraging AGW skepticism: call it $20 million a year over a ten-year period. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? At least it does until you realize how much money goes to the other side of the debate. $126 billion – World Bank estimate of carbon trading industry turnover in 2008... U.S. government spending on climate research and technology since 1989 had amounted to $79 billion... The amount spent on climate funding since 1989 by the European Union well over $100 billion.”
Quoting Michael Crichton: “Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means the he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.”
“Science is never settled. That's not how it works... in order to be properly scientific, a theory (or hypothesis) must be 'falsifiable': that is, it must be capable of being proven false either through observation or experiment.”
“'Climate change', in other words, has little if anything to do with 'science' as you or I might understand the concept. It's not a genuine problem to be solved, but a handy excuse – with a fashionable green patina – to advance a particular social and political agenda under the cloak of ecological righteousness and scientific authority... This is a debate that skeptic scientists can never possibly win, no matter how apparently overwhelmingly persuasive evidence they produce. That's because the debate was never about 'the science' in the first place. It was, is and always will be about politics.”
“What 'the science' has shown is that while levels of man-made CO2 have continued to rise as industrial output around the world has increased, global temperatures have not. The world stopped warming in 1998. This is important. What it means, essentially, is that the theory claiming that catastrophic and unprecedented global warming is linked with man-made CO2 has been (in science-speak) 'falisified'.”
Yet despite this halt in the rise of global temperature, the IPCC reports have grown increasingly alarmist: “The observed increase could be largely due... to natural variability. (1990)” “The balance of the evidence suggests discernible human influence on climate. (1996)” “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. (2001)” “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-twentieth century is very likely [= 90% probable] due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. (2007)”
The author traces the roots of the Climate Change agenda to the early environmental movement with leaders such as Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner, Harrison Brown, and the Club of Rome . The concepts were implemented by UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong. Strong's 1992 report known as Agenda 21 “effectively puts an end to national sovereignty, abolishes private property, elevates Nature above man, and places a host of restrictions on what we've come to accept as our most basic freedoms – everything from how, when and where we travel to what we eat... What you must realize is that Agenda 21 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The reason governments found it easy enough to sign is because it contains no legally binding obligations. But then, it doesn't need to, for its apparently voluntary codes can be enforced – and are regularly, scrupulously enforced – via a mechanism over which sovereign governments have little control anyway: the vast, labyrinthine, democratically unaccountable behemoth that is the United Nations... Agenda 21 is enforced mainly at the local government level. Here is how it works: Local environmental activists create a Local Agenda 21 (LA21) lobby group. Spouting the mantra 'Think Global, Act Local', they urge their town/city/district government to sign up to the 'voluntary' code of Agenda 21... The biggest take-up has been in the U.S., where over 600 districts have signed up. Welcome to the passive-aggressive world of global watermelons – socialism hiding behind the guise of environmentalism.”
“On one side are the skeptics. They value empiricism, openness, and freedom of expression. None of them denies that climate changes naturally. Few, if any, deny that human activity may have some influence on the climate. But they are concerned that the connection between human activity and climate change may have been dramatically overstated by various interest groups. Of course, if the planet really is threatened by man-made climate change, then they will be as eager as anyone else to take remedial action. So far, however, they are not convinced that the evidence of human impact justifies the hugely expensive measures being adopted to 'combat AGW'. Indeed they believe the measures are doing harm out of all proportion to the nature of the problem. This is why they are prepared to lay their necks on the line and speak up with their unfashionable views, even at the risk of their careers and public opprobrium.”
“On the other side are the alarmists. They believe that human activity – especially through the release of CO2 – is having a dangerous effect on the climate, and perhaps other things besides, such as ocean acidification. They are convinced their cause is so just and urgent that it relieves them of the need to observe normal standards of probity and decency. In order to Save the Planet, they tacitly accept that it is okay to: rig public inquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.”
“AGW is a religion. It has its high priests and prophets: Al Gore, James Hansen. It has its temples: the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC. It has its warrior monks: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ed Begley Jr. It has its concept of original sin – the Carbon Footprint – which can be bought off with the help of indulgences – Carbon Offsets. It is motivated by an overwhelming guilt that we are all sinners but that we can redeem ourselves through mortification of the flesh. And most important of all it is based on no hard evidence whatsoever. Only on faith. Pure, blind faith. This lack of factual basis ought to be a weakness. Unfortunately, though, it's what gives the religion such enduring strength, for how can anyone ever disprove something that was never provable in the first place?”
June 6, 2019
This is a well written and entertaining book by a Brit about what’s wrong with the climate change myth and cult and what it’s doing to our culture, our economy, and our future.
The author, whom I’ll refer to as JD, starts by thoroughly demolishing any scientific claim of global warming. When “Climategate” - the exposure of data fudging and lies about it by members of the IPCC as revealed by their hacked emails – came to light in 2010, JD started blogging about it and investigating further. It turns out, he discovered, that earth showed some mild warming in the late 20th century, ending in 1998, with very slight cooling since then. But the political left had found a hook for distorting the evidence and creating a Big Lie to suit its own ends.
The Green Agenda website states, spookily, that it wants "restructuring of the school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.” Those who object, most commonly called “deniers” are vilified and harassed in many ways, largely economic. Virtually all of the major opinion-makers from the BBC, to the NY Times and nearly all universities, brook no dissent. They regard anthropogenic global warming as “settled science,” forgetting that valid scientific theories must be susceptible to falsification. As Michael Crichton explained, “If it’s settled, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t settled.” The truth about AGW is revealed either by retired scientists or very brave ones. JD quotes Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
So governments are pouring countless trillions of dollars into ridiculous “decarbonization” schemes, thus fulfilling Marxist dreams of maximizing central control. All unusual weather events, even earthquakes, are attributed to climate warming. In fact, a bit of climate warming might well be a good thing. During the Medieval Warm Period, it was several degrees warmer than today’s climate, making possible greater agricultural production in the north, and beneficient influence on plants in general. The AGW crew glosses over the MWP, starting their weather data in the Little Ice Age or some other historical point more convenient for their climate models.
One of the later chapters deals with the viciousness of the Left in attacking the “deniers.” An example of this is the “No Pressure” video, made by some big names in the film/video business, and intended to demonstrate how to deal with deniers. The video shows a perky teacher asking her students to pledge their allegiance to reducing their carbon footprint “but only if you wish to, no pressure.” Only two of the students demur. At the end of the class as the students are standing up to leave, the teacher pushes a red button, twice, and the two dissenters disintegrate in an explosion of blood and gore. The sponsors of this gruesome piece quickly realized that they had overplayed their hand; even their AGW supporters were horrified, and they discovered they had made a propaganda piece for the deniers. It was quickly pulled from you.tube, and as far as I know can only be seen about halfway through JD’s video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=866yH...
There is a lot more here. It’s often witty and funny, and it’s quite inspirational for those of us who can and wish to counter the Big Lie and spread the truth. It would warm my heart to think it changed a few minds.
The author, whom I’ll refer to as JD, starts by thoroughly demolishing any scientific claim of global warming. When “Climategate” - the exposure of data fudging and lies about it by members of the IPCC as revealed by their hacked emails – came to light in 2010, JD started blogging about it and investigating further. It turns out, he discovered, that earth showed some mild warming in the late 20th century, ending in 1998, with very slight cooling since then. But the political left had found a hook for distorting the evidence and creating a Big Lie to suit its own ends.
The Green Agenda website states, spookily, that it wants "restructuring of the school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.” Those who object, most commonly called “deniers” are vilified and harassed in many ways, largely economic. Virtually all of the major opinion-makers from the BBC, to the NY Times and nearly all universities, brook no dissent. They regard anthropogenic global warming as “settled science,” forgetting that valid scientific theories must be susceptible to falsification. As Michael Crichton explained, “If it’s settled, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t settled.” The truth about AGW is revealed either by retired scientists or very brave ones. JD quotes Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
So governments are pouring countless trillions of dollars into ridiculous “decarbonization” schemes, thus fulfilling Marxist dreams of maximizing central control. All unusual weather events, even earthquakes, are attributed to climate warming. In fact, a bit of climate warming might well be a good thing. During the Medieval Warm Period, it was several degrees warmer than today’s climate, making possible greater agricultural production in the north, and beneficient influence on plants in general. The AGW crew glosses over the MWP, starting their weather data in the Little Ice Age or some other historical point more convenient for their climate models.
One of the later chapters deals with the viciousness of the Left in attacking the “deniers.” An example of this is the “No Pressure” video, made by some big names in the film/video business, and intended to demonstrate how to deal with deniers. The video shows a perky teacher asking her students to pledge their allegiance to reducing their carbon footprint “but only if you wish to, no pressure.” Only two of the students demur. At the end of the class as the students are standing up to leave, the teacher pushes a red button, twice, and the two dissenters disintegrate in an explosion of blood and gore. The sponsors of this gruesome piece quickly realized that they had overplayed their hand; even their AGW supporters were horrified, and they discovered they had made a propaganda piece for the deniers. It was quickly pulled from you.tube, and as far as I know can only be seen about halfway through JD’s video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=866yH...
There is a lot more here. It’s often witty and funny, and it’s quite inspirational for those of us who can and wish to counter the Big Lie and spread the truth. It would warm my heart to think it changed a few minds.
November 13, 2019
I'll admit that I largely agreed with Delingpole's Watermelons, before I started reading, where the main argument is that most of the AGW discussion is more about implementing social-political change rather than protecting the environment or decreasing carbon output. I understand that we all like to confirm our biases by what we read, but I truly do count myself as an AGW skeptic, just that I don't believe the motives behind the climate change movement, and also appreciate that many jobs, positions, grants, and salaries depend on the doomsday scenario.
Is the planet getting warmer? Maybe. Is it partly caused by man? Probably. Does it require massive economic retribution, government control and the limiting of technology? Hardly.
What convinces me that the AGW movement isn't necessarily concerned about carbon output, is their antipathy to nuclear and natural gas - two energy sources that drastically lower carbon output when compared to coal. Would be President Warren has already stated she will ban fracking on day one!
I immediately discount any proposition that we will replace most energy production with renewables. That is laughable and an unserious position. Wind and solar will never be able to meet modern energy demands. Not to mention the environmental problems they create with landmass takeover and the risks with mining for caustic materials for batteries.
Many of these points are stated in the book, even from eight years ago when it was published. Delingpole has a British humorist bent throughout, which helps with the levity. But his points are valid, at the very least makes you question the onslaught we hear from the media, government and businesses about the dire need to combat climate change. Again, the climate change movement is much more political than about science and protecting the environment.
Is the planet getting warmer? Maybe. Is it partly caused by man? Probably. Does it require massive economic retribution, government control and the limiting of technology? Hardly.
What convinces me that the AGW movement isn't necessarily concerned about carbon output, is their antipathy to nuclear and natural gas - two energy sources that drastically lower carbon output when compared to coal. Would be President Warren has already stated she will ban fracking on day one!
I immediately discount any proposition that we will replace most energy production with renewables. That is laughable and an unserious position. Wind and solar will never be able to meet modern energy demands. Not to mention the environmental problems they create with landmass takeover and the risks with mining for caustic materials for batteries.
Many of these points are stated in the book, even from eight years ago when it was published. Delingpole has a British humorist bent throughout, which helps with the levity. But his points are valid, at the very least makes you question the onslaught we hear from the media, government and businesses about the dire need to combat climate change. Again, the climate change movement is much more political than about science and protecting the environment.
February 6, 2022
Very interesting. What starts off as Gammon: The Novel ends up being a very good read with lots of salient points. Generally diametrically opposed to my normal world view but good to hear the other side of the argument. Most interesting is that the argument is the same that the left has for the right, so guess the conclusion is that anything which involves humans is subject to fallibility and corruption my bell ends
August 20, 2019
This changed my mind on many issues
A fun read. I really enjoyed his humour. Well researched arguments that challenge so many taken for granted opinions. Hard to put down.
A fun read. I really enjoyed his humour. Well researched arguments that challenge so many taken for granted opinions. Hard to put down.
April 12, 2016
Greens are socialist autocratic genocidal maniacs, I knew that already. I wanted to read a book that was well structured, rich in detailed proof of the allegations put in it and not so much about the author. Unfortunatelly I didn't get all that. It shows that Delingpole is a blogger - the old written, paper-based medium that is a book just doesn't fit his style.
August 28, 2016
This book nails an uncomfortable truth about the environmental movement: that it is about politics and not science. This is a left wing movement which aims to redistribute income rather than ration scarce resources, something that capitalism does remarkably well.
February 25, 2012
Well worth the read if already convinced. My full review is available here.
June 10, 2012
The true agenda behind big green.
November 11, 2013
Interesting! and scarey.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews