Letter to James DelingpolePosted on September 24th, 2009 18 comments
James Delingpole writes a web log for the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
I find his pronouncements about Global Warming contentious, and littered with sceptical myths and denier legends.
It seemed like a good moment to enquire about his education, to check whether his ideological background can lend weight to his commentary, or in contrast, set him up to be a lightweight.
Dear Mr Delingpole,
May I politely enquire as to your scientific training ? From what I can find out about your studies, you do not appear to have turned your inestimable talent to the physical sciences.
I would like to know if you have a basic understanding of elementary physics and chemistry at the very least, in order to ascertain whether you do or do not have the competence to pronounce on Climate Change science.
In your writing you seem to rely on personal commentary about those engaged in the science, and use inexact, qualified generalisations to make your points.
This is perhaps amusing, but not accurate, so I would wish to know if you have a comprehension of what you are discussing.
Are you a cracked pot or a sound vessel ? Can you be relied upon for Global Warming science and news, or not ?
Ms J. Abbess BSc
James’ web log :-
18 responses to “Letter to James Delingpole”
[NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AFTER REMOVING THE ABUSIVE TERM THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED, BUT ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE HOW RUDE JAMES MACMAHON IS. YOU CANNOT WIN A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT BY BEING INSULTING, JAMES. NEXT TIME YOU CONTRIBUTE, WOULD YOU PLEASE MIND AWFULLY OFFERING SOMETHING SANE, RATIONAL, INFORMED AND WELL-ARTICULATED ? IT WOULD HELP YOUR CASE IF YOU (OR JAMES DELINGPOLE) HAD SOME SCIENTIFIC TRAINING TO BACK UP YOUR POSITION. OTHERWISE IT’S JUST RANT. COME ON, JAMES EVEN YOU KNOW YOU’RE BLATHERING AND YOU HAVEN’T GOT A LEG TO STAND ON. BUT DO KEEP TRYING…]
You come across as a ridiculous, pompous c*****! I’m with Delingpole.
Is it your contention that if Delingpole had a degree in the physical sciences, he would axiomatically believe what you believe in relation to the climate and our effect on it; that it is only because he has no formal training in the physical sciences that he is so, as you no doubt think, misguided? – because I think there are very many people who have much more impressive degrees than, with the best will in the world (I write as someone with an identical degree from Manchester), a Physics BSc from Warwick, who believe exactly what Delingpole believes. So, really, this letter seems like pure posturing to me. I agree with Delingpole and, to be perfectly frank, I agree with James MacMahon too. Nonetheless, I hope this comment achieves a level of rationality and articulacy commensurate with your rarefied sensitivities. 😉
And what precisely are your scientific studies in the field of climatology that enables you the set yourself up as an expert on the subject. Not having a degree does not mean that you are unable to understand. You seem to be taking a very elitist attitude
And what precisely are your scientific studies in the field of climatology that enables you the set yourself up as an expert on the subject? Not having a degree does not mean that you are unable to understand. You seem to be taking a very elitist attitude
When I first was directed to this site by the honourable Mr. Delingpole’s blog I wondered, what is it that drives your interest in so called climate change… What is it that drives you to have to write an open letter to James Delingpole?
Then I spotted the tabs ‘Recruit Me’ and ‘Hire Me’ at the top of the page, and I realised what drives you.
Why will scientists never discover a cure for Cancer?
Because the money injected into research means they can never cure cancer but still get rich.
Not only that but I can guarantee another thing. In two hundred years we almost certainly won’t be talking about climate change in the way we do now.
(That is of course assuming that climate change won’t turn the World upside down. ;))
We’ll be talking about it in the same way we mock the ideas of Cosmas Indicopleustes and everyone else who believed in a flat Earth.
See every generation has to have a scare, something to drive the Sheeple into submission.
See, before climate change became the in thing there was Y2K.
The US Govt. alone spent over $100 Bil. on fixing the bug. (See my point on Cancer research.)
As well as that how much money did companies like Wal-Mart make by selling the whole Y2K thing?
Clothing companies, superstores, electronics producers are all driving the legend of the Fox (In this case climate change.) into the the Sheep. Conveniently they get EXTRA money from the consumer for making things more CO2 friendly.
And I’m only scratching the surface of this ‘elaborate’ money making scheme.
I haven’t even got into Taxes in order to make the World more CO2 friendly and what have you.
Congratulations. You found a target who you thought was weak. The person who is flawed is not Mr. Delingpole, but you. Course, you’re probably to far up yourself to notice that what with that education of yours.
Start bragging about your education when you’ve walked out of Oxford, Cambridge or MIT. Warwick might rank sixth on the Times best University rankings but to me and most others it means jack.
As for education when Mr. Delingpole was in school they were looking at other things to cause fear, as opposed to climate change.
Not only that but the scientific ‘fact’ being taught to the youth of Britain today, isn’t scientific fact. Relating to climate change everything taught in the classroom regarding the said farce is highly opinionated, with know room for any kind of debate.
Of course, resistance is futile.
“Can you be relied upon for Global Warming science and news, or not?”
More so than the elitist who brags (And yes you do brag!) about her education, yet fails three times at placing question marks in her letter to Mr. Delingpole.
I’ve always been of the belief that science was about theories and not consensus, science is never settled there is always a new discover on the horizon. That is why humanity has always strived to find new knowledge and break away from its own dogma and superstitions. Your views on global warming appear to be akin to a medieval pope, as decrying anyone who holds a different opinion to your own as a heritic. If you are indeed correct and Mr Delingpole is not then surely your scientific case would hold up but instead you try to taint his work and question his legitimacy to express an opinion. This is not the act of a rational scientist but someone fighting from a weak position.
You suggest he may be a lightweight, but it would appear to me that is in fact you who is the lightweight afterall you’re the one who feels the need to quote your BSc to try to legistimise your beliefs and denigrate Mr Delingpoles.
Only one degree? Go away and become a proper academic, do some research then you can question others qualifications.
Would you care to explain Monbiots ‘training’ other than a degree in that climate related subject called Zoology?
Or Al Gore?
Oh I forgot its OK from one side……
I too have a degree or two. One is a physics degree, mine is from Liverpool. I agree with the first two posters. You come across as a pompous arse and Delingpole is more than qualified to assess nonsense when nonsense is obvious to all.
Keep up the good work. People like you will kill AGW faster than it will die by the strength of its own failed ‘science’ alone.
I think everyone above me has said what needed to be, except that your position is frankly laughable.
I hope you can continue to feel intellectually superior to individuals without a degree.
Perhaps it’s a good thing then that you seem to spend most of your time with the other green fruity loops. Otherwise you might find your position less tenable.
I have been struck by the rudeness and vitriol which the deniers have attacked you. I too have a science degree and I find the evidence for climate change compelling.Having one does not mean you are better but it given Delingbore’s interest you would think he may try and undertake one. I am sure he wouldn’t stop talking about it as he does the WW2 as if he is the only person who knows.
I am unclear about the attack on your degree- i.e. you are being elitist. If I were writing about Hitler I would not expect to be as informed as some one who did not go to Uni .
However Delingbore rarely quotes science. If he did he may have a better case.
Its typical of his type to attack with vitriol and then plead hurt when its done to them. He can dish it but he can’t take it.
At heart the evidence for climate change is statistical rather than physical however and as such I suggest Delingsore ( or however you spell the idiot’s name) and his ilk go back to school and redo their stats module in GCSE.
So there you have it Jo
James Delingbore/ sore- thank me when you use it.
Goreflakes keep falling on my head.
But that doesn’t mean the global warming meme is dead!
Denying works for me! So-
I’m gonna simply change the game by reframing
you see –
post normal science is a great consensus –
a mystery – the wizardry of false pretenses.
Goreflakes keep falling on my head.
But that doesn’t mean the climate funding cow is dead!
the need to investigate the whole situation.
Nothing’s worrying me.
Pete Lee – one sane voice against the madness. As you say, why are these people always so rude and angry? Could it be that they envy those of us who have science degrees?
You are an idiot.
I’m with Delingpole.
Delingpole is a ridiculous pompous idiot that knows nothing about science. He’d be better off spending his time getting an education in science than wasteing his time emptying the contents of his bowels in the Telegraph.
Quick question for you to ponder Jo.
Q. Are there any scientists, with directly relevant scientific backgrounds, who are disputing the man made element of climate change?
From what I’ve seen of the AGW zealots, an educational background in science is not required, and is often discarded in a faith in AGW.
Re: Ted Taylor
Now we know exactly who this arsewipe Delingpole appeals to. The usual disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, factually impaired simpletons who would much rather have some mindless Talking Point to spout around the water-cooler than have an actual Scientific Opinion… They have no involvement in any Science at all… except the Science of Stupid.
Of course that small fact that there is no such thing as “Global Warming science” makes your credibility as a scientist rather plain for all to see, don’t you think?
[ COMMENT FROM JOABBESS.COM : I KNOW A NUMBER OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT WOULD SAY THEIR WORK IS VALID. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THAT ? WHAT DO YOU KNOW ? ]
Quite simply the climate of the earth has always been in flux and we are yet to see any credible science that proves that mankind has had any influence at all on the change that is being observed now. The CO2 theory, based on manipulated data and computer models, is not conclusive evidence of any kind and questionable to even be considered as science!
[ COMMENT FROM JOABBESS.COM : INDEED, THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT FLUX SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND THE THERMOSTATIC CONTROL HAS BEEN MOSTLY CARBON DIOXIDE FLUCTUATIONS, THE PRECESSION OF THE EARTH’S AXIS, THE IRREGULARITY OF ITS ORBIT, THE GROWTH OF OXYGEN-EMITING LIFE, THE UPSURGE IN OXYGEN-BREATHING MULTICELLULAR LIFE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WATER CYCLE, AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE GEOLOGICAL CARBON CYCLE. ]
However we do see an HUGE political move powered by taxation! This is NOT a theory and does NOT take a scientist to spot.
Are you as a scientist really telling us that if we pay more tax the climate will stop changing???
[ COMMENT FROM JOABBESS.COM : IN FACT I SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE. I SAY THAT PAYING A CARBON TAX WILL NOT PREVENT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSONS, AS IT IS NOT A POSITIVE INCENTIVE TO BUILD UP CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES. ]
This is what this whole debate comes down to in the end, money and power. Science has nothing to do with it!
[ COMMENT FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT WOULD BE BEST IF SCIENCE HAD THE LARGEST VOICE AND NOT ECONOMIC THEORIES – SUCH AS THE “FREE MARKET”, “CUTTING THE DEFICIT” AND “CUTTING RED TAPE”. ]
Dear Ms. Abbess:
A friend referred me to your page here, claiming it was a classic example of the Ad Hominem debate technique. The definition given was that, “If you can’t discredit the facts, then try to discredit the man”. Thank you for posting this example. This has helped tremendously in my further understanding of the Ad Hominem attack technique.
Leave a reply