Delingpole would have more credibility if he played it straight.
In today’s Daily Telegraph – for the umpteenth time – James Delingpole attempts to tell us that climate change is all in the mind, and bits falling off both poles of the Earth are merely signs of ice fatigue, or something.
For his latest piece, JD employs the services of an extremely didactic and unfunny cartoon by Josh about the ‘tiny’ amount of global warming that is represented by both CO2, and the human race in producing it.
Both the statistics are correct, but the interpretation given is complete tosh.
There is no dispute among ‘warmists’ (as James’s conspiracist band calls people with their eyes open) that CO2 in the atmosphere is a minute proportion of the total. But Delingpole uses Josh to suggest that climate researchers don’t know this – a ridiculous aspersion – and then compounds the crime by asserting that such a small amount cannot have the influence claimed for it.
This is because James doesn’t understand chemistry, and the ability of just 450 parts per million of CO2 to bugger everything up. (Certain toxic gases given off by the reaction between solids and acids would kill everyone who breathed them at 100 ppm).
In his 2009 book A Final Warning, James Lovelock modelled the effect of a CO2 increase to 500 ppm, and produced a temperature rise of 5 degrees centigrade.
He also quoted sourced figures to show that 23% of that effect would come from humans and their livestock. Josh’s cartoon used this amount as a percentage of total air volume in order to make it seem minute. But it isn’t. (In fact, Lovelock was being very sparing with his 23% estimate: many other eminent researchers put it closer to 45%.)
What pisses me off about the warmist v deniers bollocks is the degeneration into massaging figures and other propaganda that the whole debate becomes with each new piece of research.
Both sides have lost the plot on this one. The game is not to defeat the enemy; the task is to discern whether climate change could be a threat. The evidence suggests to me that it definitely could, but either way – what would happen if the warmists were proved right, and we’d done nothing?
Mind you, ‘Better safe than sorry’ is one thing, but the New Labour knee-jerk ‘ten recycling boxes and four million wind turbines’ drivel is equally ignorant – and not addressing what I’ve always said is the real elephant in the room: a growing global population with nowhere near enough water to go round.
Anyway, the moral is this: always enter any climate debate with a jaundiced eye: an orchestra hath no fiddlers like climate scientists trying to prove a point. This piece from Delingpole scores very high on the Toshometer.