(Why yes, I did write this post entirely for the pun.)
The Eco-fascists have taken over! So says James Delingpole, anyway. His proof?
Well, in October, Brussels Airport won an award for reducing its carbon emissions. A month later, it snowed.
This isn’t a new thing. It has been going on for years, since at least the 1992 Rio Earth Summit when Maurice Strong laid down the ground rules for the eco-fascist takeover of the world. It’s bit like that classic 2000AD “Future Shocks” story where the aliens that have invaded our planet unbeknownst to us turn out to be those innocuous-looking wire coat hangers we have in our cupboards. The battle for our freedom is already all but lost – and the stupid thing is, most of us didn’t even know we were fighting one.
So now – not in some imagined, paranoid fantasist’s future, but NOW – we live in a world where an airport is encouraged to place a higher priority on reducing its notional production of a harmless trace gas than it does in making provision for aeroplanes to be able to take off and land in inclement weather.
You may have noticed it was not snowing in October, and that it’s perfectly possible for an airport to offset its carbon emissions and clear away snow, and that the two events were completely unrelated. Shush!
Delingpole then moves onto the Met Office. The Met Office’s seasonal forecasts are always vague – as winter approaches, they generally make them more accurate. True enough, in the last few years, they’ve generally predicted that a warm winter was more likely than a cold one, and had to revise that as winter approached. Whether or not the Met Office was right has nothing to do with climate change however. A year is much too short to see global warming happen.
Delingpole quotes a Department for Transport report (pdf) which, he claims, shows the Met Office predicted there was only a 1 in 20 chance that this winter would be severe (which, of course, does not mean the same thing as simply “cold”). In fact, this is taken out of context – the report simply points out (p. 88-9) that in general, one winter in twenty is severe, and the fact that the last two years were severe does not necessarily mean they are clustering. The report after all was issued in July, long before the Met Office could say with any certainty what the weather would do.
Incidentally, the Met Office didn’t predict this winter would be mild. One of their computers predicted the winter would be mild, based on a limited set of data, but as the Met Office said at the time:
“This is not an official forecast, it’s data that would form part of a longer term prediction.
“If you look at the whole picture across north west Europe, there’s a higher chance of a cold winter than a warm one.”
Anyway, Delingpole gets someone to do the numbers for him, and finds that the odds of three severe winters is 1 in 8000 (presumably because that’s 1 in 20, to the power of three – not really the right way to do the sum in this case anyway), therefore the Met Office must be wrong. The old joke comes to mind of a guy who fires blindly into a wall, looks for a spot where several bullets have clustered together, draws a bullseye around them and declares himself a crackshot. Most winters of course are not severe, and two or three severe ones clustered together among mild ones, while a bit unlikely, isn’t as impossible as Delingpole claims, and itself shows nothing. If lots of winters were severe over decades, then that would prove the 1 in 20 winters is severe claim was inaccurate. On their own, three winters prove nothing. If you throw a coin and score three heads in a row, that doesn’t prove the coin is loaded, especially if the last few tosses had a good mixture of heads and tails. If you score a hundred heads in a row, then you should be suspicious.
Okay, that was a diversion, since the Met Office’s predictions had little to do with global warming. Anyway, remember those eco-fascists Delingpole was complaining about?
Heads are going to roll for this, they’ll have to. But however many heads do roll it won’t be enough. Always remember this: the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition’s energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children’s schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council….
Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!
Giving an airport a certificate? Fascist.
Shooting politicians, journalists, teachers and scientists because you disagree with them? Not fascist.
Good to know.
#1 by Frankie D. on Thursday, 23rd December 2010 - 16:21 GMT+0100
What a cunt……
#2 by Harlander on Thursday, 23rd December 2010 - 17:15 GMT+0100
This is pretty nauseating, but the worst part, to me, is that by reading 2000AD I might somehow be, even at the most attenuated level possible, associated with this ghastly bilge.
Why must everything I enjoy end up sullied?
#3 by Daz on Thursday, 23rd December 2010 - 18:02 GMT+0100
Good article, thanks.
“draws a bullseye around them and declares himself a crapshot”
I think you mean a crack shot /lexicographical pedantry :-)
So, the last paragraph you quote actually adds up to “All these well-informed people say it exists, but on the basis of my prejudices, and some dodgy maths, I beg to differ.” I always think the ridiculousness shows more if the verbiage is stripped away.
Out of interest, just how do the Met come up with any sort of forecast months ahead, no matter how accurate? I was under the impression that weather patters were so chaotic that four days was the limit, no matter how much RAM you throw at it.
#4 by atomicspin on Thursday, 23rd December 2010 - 18:23 GMT+0100
Oops, yes, thanks! I think writing about Delingpole’s columns just causes the word “crap” to subconsciously drift into my mind.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think ultimately, long term weather forecasts are about looking at patterns; looking at years which had similar weather and seeing what happened next. Monitoring things like El Nino Southern Oscillation – the cyclical heating and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, which happens every three to five years – lets you know at least roughly what the weather will do (we’re currently heading into a “La Nina” part of the cycle, where the Pacific cools down, hence why everyone predicted this winter would be colder). The NOAA has a guide to how they make seasonal forecasts, but it’s written in an irritating CAPS LOCK telegraph style and it is kind of annoyingly technical.
#5 by knightofthedropdowntable on Thursday, 23rd December 2010 - 21:57 GMT+0100
As almost every way of reducing carbon emissions pays for itself or actually makes a profit, the very basis of this article makes no sense. He is actually saying “I do not understand this topic, but we should shoot everyone that doesn’t agree with me regardless.”