“And here’s another word that ends in “tard”…”
James Delingpole has found a scientist who’s saying some unexceptional things about promoting climate change awareness. Apparently he’s “evil” and an “arch-fiend” – even more malevolent, that is, than yer average fiend. In his knock-off rant Delingpole employs two errors that sometimes arise in what I’ll loosely term conspiracy theorising (not an irrational practice but one that needs some thought and rigour). It’s ironic that such foolishness arises from a mainstream journalist but – then – each community needs its clowns. (I don’t oppose climate scepticism, by the way – just Delingpole. His writings, that is: the guy himself has a sense of humour and a two-thirds decent taste in films.)
First, Delingpole employs Deconstructiation: the practice of interpreting a statement so as to ensure that it’ll cast the writer in the worst moral light. So, he claims the scientist – Mike Hulme – is slyly employing “pseudo-academic gobbledegook designed to mean whatever listeners want it to mean“. Well, you can wander through and decide for yourself but I think it’s just a waffly piece affirming that supposed climate science can’t determine policy. No, Delingpole insists, it’s an admission that he’s “rumbled [them] on Climate Change“. Mmhmm? Well, if the J-man bothered to do five minutes fuggin’ research he’d find that Hulme’s been saying exactly the same thing since long before Warmergate.
Delingpole moves on to use So That’s Your Little Game!: by which one assumes that one’s rhetorical opponent is motivated by the worst possible intentions. For the winner of Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism that’s “advancing the goals of the liberal Left“. Well, I’ve seen no reason to assume that Hulme’s a lying bastard so that’s vapid from the start. Let’s suppose he is, however. This is a guy who’s netted tens of millions of pounds for his research into climate change – surely those near-boundless big ones would be more of an interest than ideological fervour? Let’s face it, ask yer average Brit if they’d kick a dear old lady for a thousand smackers and they might put boot to bottom. Ask them if they’d spend an hour delivering leaflets for their ideals, however, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a volunteer.
J-Del’s motivated by an “ideological war” that he believes he’s fighting alongside Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray. There’s a threesome who have long-relied on the tactics of the bad conspiracy theoriser and, yet, escaped the universal sneers that others get. Who knows? Perhaps their theories aren’t as inconvenient.
November 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Does having a blog hosted on a mainstream publication’s site make one a “mainstream journalist”? Has any of his work actually made it into the print version of the Telegraph? As far as I’m aware he’s only ever been permitted to spew his bullshit (or, more acurately, bullshit recycled from anthony watts and bishop hill) on his blog. Other than that he’s restricted to the self-reinforcing circle jerk of wingnut talkshows in the US.
November 18, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Hi,
Thanks for commenting…
Perhaps not, but he has indeed been published widely in print. In such illustrious outlets as the Spectator…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/author/?searchString=James%20Delingpole
The Daily Mail…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1222950/Its-YOUR-fault-kittens-puppies-drown-Daddy.html
And, yes, the Telegraph…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/5354580/D-Day-Heroic-battle-in-Port-en-Bessin.html
Doesn’t get much more mainstream than that. Without actually being Simon Cowell’s teeth.
December 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm
[...] my list of features would-be theorists should avoid goes the self explanatory Are You Or Have You Ever Been?. If there isn’t a direct connection [...]
January 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Delingpole complains about the establishment censoring dissent. But of course he does that himself, and removes any comments pointing out factual errors in his case.
This post was removed within seconds from his blog, for instance.
Losing some posts here, I’ll try and add Pabloreale’s last post on Delingpole’s blog – which was removed within 12 seconds, coincidentally at a time when he happened to be responding to posts himself.
The Curious Double Standards of James Delingpole
““If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship.”
So why are comments alleging that the Horizon figures on man-made emissions were incorrect allowed to stay… whereas follow-up comments, pointing out that the figures were correct, net figures, complete with a helpful illustration of the difference between revenue and profit, deleted within seconds?
Why is Christopher Booker’s support of Delinpgole’s arguments so frequently cited – but mentions of Brooker’s Evolution-denial are instantly censored?
I see Mr Delingpole is keeping us company today.
Editing. Interpretation. Censorship. You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
February 2, 2011 at 1:54 pm
[...] See also Deconstructiation, So That’s Your Little Game! and Are You Have You Ever Been?. LikeBe the first to [...]
February 2, 2011 at 2:02 pm
[...] See also Deconstructiation, So That’s Your Little Game! and Are You Or Have You Ever [...]
May 21, 2011 at 2:28 am
[...] within the confines of rational inquiry I wouldn’t have a problem. Hell, I’ve made a few tentative stabs at this myself. But they go further – trying to belittle dissident research [...]