The TV interview that tied James Delingpole's tongue The bellicose Telegraph climate sceptic has complained to the BBC of being 'intellectually raped' on Horizon during an interview with Nobel prize-winner Sir Paul Nurse
• Climate sceptics: are they gaining any credence? <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-sceptics-public-opinion> • Climate sceptic James Delingpole's cheap shot at Newsweek backfires <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/19/climate-sceptic-james-delingpole> [image: Adam Blog : James Delingpole] James Delingpole being interviewed in May 2010 on Fox News by Gretchen Carlson. Photograph: Aristide Economopoulos/Corbis James Randerson <https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jamesranderson> Monday 24 January 2011 04.00 ESTFirst published on Monday 24 January 2011 04.00 EST - <https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share?app_id=180444840287&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fblog%2F2011%2Fjan%2F24%2Fjames-delingpole-tv-interview%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_fb> - <https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The%20TV%20interview%20that%20tied%20James%20Delingpole%27s%20tongue%20%7C%20James%20Randerson&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fblog%2F2011%2Fjan%2F24%2Fjames-delingpole-tv-interview%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_tw> - <?subject=The%20TV%20interview%20that%20tied%20James%20Delingpole%27s%20tongue%20%7C%20James%20Randerson&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fblog%2F2011%2Fjan%2F24%2Fjames-delingpole-tv-interview%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_link> - View more sharing options Shares 7 Comments 821 <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview#comments> I'm looking forward to watching Horizon: Science Under Attack this evening <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql>. First, it is about a question that impinges on much public debate about science – how can scientists be open to dialogue and scrutiny from the public without being derailed by politically motivated attack and mischievous wrecking? But I must confess, I am also intrigued to see one of the most forthright and at times vicious commentators on global warming, James Delingpole <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/>, torn apart (by his own admission) in an interview. The Telegraph blogger is not on the receiving end of an acerbic Jeremy Paxman or belligerent John Humphrys. He is questioned by the new president of the Royal Society, the distinguished geneticist and Nobel prize-winner Sir Paul Nurse <http://royalsociety.org/people/paul-nurse/>. I have not seen the programme, but Delingpole apparently complained to the BBC afterwards that he had been "intellectually raped" by Nurse. More about that later. Sign up to the new-look Media Briefing: bigger, better, brighter Read more <https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/feb/15/sign-up-to-the-media-briefing> Such a confrontation is perhaps inevitable in a programme about why public debate and science sometimes seem so far apart. Scientists have always had to argue their case, and rightly so, but Nurse believes they are now fighting a more fundamental battle – one for public trust. As the programme blurb puts it: Key scientific ideas – such as climate change, MMR vaccinations and genetically modified foods – now polarise public opinion; it's clear that scientific opinion and consensus isn't always supported by the public. Sir Paul sets out to investigate how this gap between scientists and the public has developed, meeting leading investigators and well-known critics of some of the world's most contentious scientific theories. Among others, Nurse talks to Tony, an American with Aids who is not convinced that his disease is caused by the HIV virus. So, instead of receiving clinically supported anti-retroviral treatments, he treats himself with yoghurts and his own nutritional programme. And then there's Delingpole. Nurse told me that he simply presented Delingpole with a hypothetical question: if a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would he opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack? In terms of the science of climate change, that fringe maverick is analogous, of course, to Delingpole's own position. Delingpole apparently found the line of questioning too much to handle and was purportedly lost for words. He at one point, according to Nurse, asked for the film crew to stop filming. Delingpole told the Guardian he denied asking the crew to stop filming. "The interview went on for about three hours – there were various points where I said 'I've had enough, I want a tea break.' There was no point where I felt that the interview had to be stopped because I was in any way uncomfortable with what Nurse was saying." Asked if he had called the BBC <https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc> to say he had been "intellectually raped" afterwards, he said: "I don't think I would have said that, because he is incapable of intellectually raping me." This vision of a shrinking violet is not the man who comes across in his bellicose Telegraph blog. In that medium he seems pretty keen to dish it out without the slightest provocation. In a recent post, for example, he referred to the people who run London zoo as having "eco-fascist leanings" <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100071425/everything-dead-by-tomorrow-warns-zoological-society-of-london/> for daring to suggest that climate change might be connected with the extinction of corals. To Delingpole, Roger Harrabin is the "the BBC's High Priest of Gaian Worship and Climate Alarmism" <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100070451/how-the-doomed-met-office-tried-to-spin-its-way-out-of-trouble/>. And in an outburst worthy of Sarah Palin, Delingpole reaches for his metaphorical semi-automatic <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069327/climate-change-there-just-arent-enough-bullets/> : "...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!" Delingpole is clearly a very angry man, but perhaps he should develop a thicker skin. On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: > > > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] <javascript:> > To: [email protected] > Sent: 1/2/2017 11:26:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time > Subj: Re: [PoliticalForum] Fwd: [grendelreport] Rules for Righties -- a > War-Winning... > > RIGHT ON! A great piece and thanx for the encouragement to keep at it and > we will win. > > A 40%'er from California. > > P.S. Just keep an eye on this liberal dominated state to see and > understand where these fools would take us all. For example: Two > Democrat members of our County Board of Supervisors' is proposing to take > $1,000,000 of property tax payer funds to spend on attorneys to represent > illegals in Court! We can guess those attorneys taking the million dollars > will be their Democratic lawyer friends. This at a time when we need roads > fixed, sewers cleaned out before the winter rains, bridges reinforced etc. > etc. etc. Their priorities are all screwed up!!! We must fight on..... > In a message dated 1/2/2017 5:51:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] <javascript:> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/01/2016-just-start-going-win-2017/ > DELINGPOLE: Rules for Righties — a War-Winning Manifesto for 2017 2016 > was a great year for most of us – but just because we’ve gained the > beachhead doesn’t mean we’re going to win the war. > > With Brexit and Donald Trump, we’ve done the equivalent of capturing > everywhere from Pointe Du Hoc to Pegasus Bridge. But just like with D-Day, > the worst of the fighting is yet to come. Our enemy is fanatical, > determined, well organised. Plus, they still hold most of the key > positions: the big banks, the corporations, the top law firms, the civil > service, local government, the universities, the schools, the mainstream > media, Hollywood… Give those bastards half the chance and they’ll drive us > back into the sea – which, in contemporary terms, means nixing Brexit (or > giving us “soft Brexit”, which is basically the same thing) and frustrating > all the things President Trump will try to do to Make America Great Again. > > I use the war analogy first because World War II analogies never fail, but > second because this really is a war that we’re fighting. The bad news is > that wars are hard, costly and ugly. The good news is that we’re on the > right side and we’re going to win. Here’s how: > > *We will never underestimate the wickedness of the enemy* > > The liberal-left loves to portray us as the bad guys. But that’s > just projection. From Mao’s China to Stalin’s Soviet Union, from Cuba to > North Korea, history is littered with the wreckage of failed left wing > schemes to make the world a better, fairer place. > > As the great, now sadly-retired Thomas Sowell > <http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/12/27/12-fantastic-thomas-sowell-quotes-in-honor-of-his-retirement-n2263995> > > says, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an > intellectual could ignore or evade it.” Its malign influence is still with > us today. Innocent boys being accused of rape on college campuses; genuine > rapes committed by gangs of Muslim taxi drivers in northern England and by > gangs of Muslim immigrants in German cities like Cologne; hundreds of > thousands driven into fuel poverty, landscapes ravaged, avian fauna sliced > and diced as a result of crazy renewable energy policies; a > Nobel-prize-winning scientist driven out of his job because a feminist > loser misreported something he said about women at a conference; > generations of kids denied a rigorous, disciplined, useful education; the > needless violence and tension engendered by #blacklivesmatter: we should > never concede the moral high ground to the kind of people who make all this > sort of stuff possible, no matter how many times they tell us how evil and > selfish and uncaring we are. > > *We will always remember that we are better than them* > > I’ll give you an example: the dumbass lecturer at Drexel who tweeted that > what he wanted for Christmas was “white genocide” > <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/26/the-far-left-ideas-that-motivate-white-genocide-professor/>. > > Should we be demanding that the university authorities sack him at once? Of > course we shouldn’t. > > The man has performed an invaluable public service: he has provided the > perfect example of how ingrained the values of the left are in academe; he > has shown prospective applicants to the Politics and Global Studies course > at Drexel University in Philadelphia that unless they want to be > indoctrinated with hard-left lunacy they might want to reconsider; he has > further shown alumni of Drexel University who believe in old fashioned > stuff like free markets that maybe they shouldn’t include their alma mater > in their million dollar bequests, after all. > > Sure, we should jeer and crow when we catch idiots like this man > expressing reprehensible opinions. But the idea that someone should > actually lose their job for something they said on Twitter ought to be > anathema to those of us on the right side of the argument. One of the most > thoroughly hateful things about the left is the way it tries to constrain > free expression. If we play the same game, we are no better than they are. > And face it: we just are. > > *We will take the fight to the enemy, not cower in No Man’s Land* > > One of the best things about 2016 for me was the way it gave the lie to > the weaselish and wet aphorism – so often repeated by so many of our > impeccably reasonable, sensible and balanced TV and newspaper pundits – > that elections are “won in the centre ground.” > > This was the Belial philosophy that gave us, in the U.S., that hideous > continuum from the Bushes and the Clintons to Obama; and in Britain, the > grotesque and malign Third Way squishery that took us from Tony Blair > through to his (self-admitted heir) David Cameron and beyond. (It’s also > the mindset which invented the disgraceful, sell-out concept of “soft > Brexit”.) > > No wonder so many of us had become so fed up with politics: no matter > which party you voted for, whether the notionally left-wing one or the > notionally right-wing one you still seemed to end up up with the same old > vested interests, the same old liberal Establishment elite. > > Of course we should always despise the liberal-left because their > philosophy is morally bankrupt, dangerous and wrong. But I sometimes think > that the people we should despise most of all are the squishes who pretend > to be on our side of the argument but forever betray our cause. Sometimes > they do this by throwing the more outspoken among us to the wolves in order > to signal how tolerant and virtuous they are > <https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/811282023075708928>; > sometimes they do this by endorsing some fatuous liberal position in order > to show their willingness to compromise. > > I call the latter approach the “dogshit yogurt fallacy.” > > If conservatives like fruit or honey in their yogurt and liberals prefer > to eat it with dogshit, it is NOT a sensible accommodation – much as our > centrist conservative columnists might wish it so – to say: “All right. How > about we eat our yogurt with a little bit of both?” We need to understand, > very clearly, that there *are* such things as right and wrong; and that, > furthermore, it is *always* worth fighting to the bitter end for the > right thing rather than accepting second best because a bunch of lawyers > and politicians and hairdressers from Brazil and squishy newspaper > columnists and other members of the liberal elite have told us that second > best is the best we can hope for. > > On Brexit, for example, I’m with Her Majesty the Queen > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4069540/Well-said-Ma-BBC-s-Political-Editor-reveals-Queen-supports-Brexit-QUENTIN-LETTS-says-course-does-understands-people-far-better-politician.html>: > > “‘I don’t see why we can’t just get out? What’s the problem?’ > > *We will never apologise, never explain, **never** surrender* > > See those scalped corpses, littering the plains? These are the guys – and > it is, invariably, men – who thought that if only they showed contrition > for their confected crimes the enemy would leave them alone. Sir Tim Hunt > <http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/18/sir-tim-hunt-to-leave-britain-how-feminists-chased-away-one-of-britains-geniuses/> > > apologised, the guy from Saatchi > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3718986/Woman-high-flier-hits-Saatchi-boss-sexism-row-Company-s-chief-creative-officer-says-comments-upset-huge-employees.html>apologised, > > the guy on the Rosetta space programme who wore the “sexist” shirt > <http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/15/brilliant-anti-feminist-spoof-claims-space-scientist-s-shirt-is-sexist/> > > apologised. A fat lot of good it did them. The vengeful liberal-left > doesn’t just want humiliation – it wants total annihilation. > > Giving even an inch of ground to an enemy so implacable and vile is not > only futile – but it also badly lets the side down by granting them a power > that they do not deserve. The most recent sorry example of this was Steve > Martin who actually deleted a tweet praising his late friend Carrie > Fisher > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/28/steve-martin-deletes-tweet-calling-carrie-fisher-b/>as > > a “beautiful creature” because a bunch of feminazis on Twitter complained > that this was sexist objectification. > > Look, I know it’s a scary thing when the SJW witch-hunt mob turns on you. > But read Vox Day’s SJW Attack Survival Guide > <http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf>, follow the > example of Nigel Farage and fight these people to the very last bullet > (keeping the final round for yourself). Do not surrender! (And if you need > reminding why not, read this piece I wrote the other day, of which I am > very proud > <http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/12/25/delingpole-moronic-self-righteous-disgusting-losers-tried-to-turn-the-berlin-attack-on-nigel-farage/> > ) > > *We will laugh in the face of death* > > Something I’ve noticed about the liberal-left: they don’t have a sense of > humour. > > This is odd, given that 99.99 per cent of professional comedians are > liberals. But it’s also unfailingly true. Go on social media and see for > yourself: all the wittiest banter, all the funniest memes, all the > snarkiest jibes – they all come from the right side of the argument, not > the left. And this is as it should be for not only is humour a sign of > intellectual superiority but it’s also entirely the right attitude for a > team that wants to win. > > Humour requires a degree of self-knowledge; an ability to recognise your > own weaknesses (vital if you are to triumph over them) and not to take > yourself too seriously. Also, it’s a sign that you are a happy warrior – in > the manner of heroes like Andrew Breitbart. > > I always try to keep this in mind when I’m engaged in a vicious tussle > with the liberal-left: that witty barbs hurt them much more than > anger. When your enemy takes himself so seriously, no weapon is more > effective than a cutting quip. Sometimes it’s hard not be to angry because > the left has given us so much to be angry about. But we must resist the > temptation if we can because it just plays into the left’s caricature of us > as angry, blustering conservatives. We should remember at all times that in > the culture wars, we are the Greek city states and the enemy are the > Persians. If you want to know the significance of this, I recommend you > read Victor Davis Hanson’s *Carnage and Culture. *Basically, free men > will always fight better than serfs because they have more to lose… > > *We will mercilessly expose their weaknesses* > > People on the liberal-left are just like us, really, only slightly less > evolved. Their brains are stuck in that stage of evolution just before ours > – the hunter-gatherer stage when we were all roaming the plains and were > programmed to respond in the most basic way to our most primal instincts. > > This is why so much of the left-liberal ‘argument’ has to do with raw > emotion rather than logic; it’s why they’ll almost never engage with us on > detail, preferring simply to use what Vox Day calls “point and shriek” > tactics, or to try to belittle and demean us with emotive (but meaningless) > pejoratives like “racist”, “homophobe”, “misogynist”, “Islamophobe”, > “climate change denier.” > > They have been using these techniques very successfully for years and in > my experience there is only one effective way of dealing with this: you > have to *show their workings. *You have to notice what they are doing and > then you have to explain to other people what they are doing. > > This is hard: it requires patience, courage and persistence – the > equivalent of maintaining discipline under fire. Again, I refer you to this > piece > <http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/12/25/delingpole-moronic-self-righteous-disgusting-losers-tried-to-turn-the-berlin-attack-on-nigel-farage/>I > > wrote recently because it embodies the kind of attitude and techniques > required. Essentially it was a response to a mass assault by SJWs using > Twitter to brand those of us on the right as heartless, uncaring, ruthless, > evil people who would use a man’s recently widowed status against him. The > attacks came in 140 character bursts. The response took almost 3000 words. > But that’s the way it is: logic and rational argument take much longer to > develop than emotive cheap shots. If we don’t use logic and rational > argument though, we concede the field to the pointers and shriekers. > > *Leave no man behind* > > Diversity is our strength. This is the kind shit leftists, say, I know, > but hear me out. At a conservative political meeting I attended in DC, > recently, a woman stood up to address the assembled members of the Vast > Right Wing conspiracy. Black and dressed a bit like the lovable, wise > sassy, prostitute character from a 1970s Blaxploitation movie, she did not > look obviously like a card-carrying Republican. But she was and she had > come from California with a message: “Don’t abandon us! > > We know everyone in the conservative movement thinks that California is a > joke. But 40 per cent of us voted for Donald Trump and we need your help!” > She’s right. Unlike the left – which sees ethnic, sexual and religious > minorities mainly as client victim groups to patronise and exploit for > identity politics purposes – we on the right “celebrate diversity” by not > giving a damn about diversity. > > The reason Sowell’s great and Milo’s great and Krauthammer’s great is not > because they’re black and gay and disabled and therefore “helpful” to our > cause, but simply because they think clearly and sensibly and have come to > the right conclusions about the world. We support our own through thick and > thin. We are all equal and we all have equal rights, just like the 14th > amendment says. (Which means, by the way, that we don’t believe in positive > discrimination – which is just another form of discrimination, as practised > by the disgusting left not the sensible and just right). > > *Always attack* > > This, pretty much, was the tactic of the Royal Navy throughout the > Napoleonic Wars – even when outnumbered and outgunned by the French and the > Spanish. > > Today we are similarly outgunned and outnumbered by the loathsome edifice > of the liberal establishment – and if we are going to reduce it to rubble, > as of course we must, then we shall have to fight as aggressively as Nelson > and Cochrane did. > > For far, far too long, conservatives have been fighting a defensive war – > spending more time apologising for being conservatives than actually taking > on the enemy. But at last, in the U.S. at least, we have a leader who is > not afraid of a fight. What does “always attack” mean in practice, though? > Well here’s a perfect example: a recent *New York Times* story headed > “Wielding > Claims of ‘Fake News’ Conservatives take aim at mainstream media > <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us/politics/fake-news-claims-conservatives-mainstream-media-.html?_r=0> > “. > > The author of the story appears slightly taken back that conservatives are > behaving in this way. Surely we should be feeling guilty for all those fake > news stories spread by evil right-wing people on the internet in order to > deceive the weak-minded by acting against their interests by voting for > Brexit and Donald Trump? But no, far from apologising it seems that we on > the right have been on the attack. If anyone is responsible for pumping out > fake news these last few decades its the liberal elite and their > mouthpieces in the MSM, not us. > > OK. We’re done. Unleash hell. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: https://www.avast.com/antivirus] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZ20ycjNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0ODMzNTY0ODQ-> > > > > [image: > https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYjljYTU2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ4MzM1NjQ4NA--] > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYjljYTU2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ4MzM1NjQ4NA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
