Keep the Coal in a Black Hole and the Gas up Rusbridger’s Wassname

I was idly surfing the English language TV news channels looking for reactions to the Greek crisis, and came across two science items. In the first the presenter was interviewing a science correspondent who was holding a cuddly furry toy polar bear.
“Robust, robust, robust!” I thought she said, but it turned out she was talking about robots, so I switched channels and landed on another presenter interviewing another science correspondent. Here’s a rough transcript from memory:

Interviewer: So what’s in a black hole?
Science Correspondent: Well, until recently scientists couldn’t see many black holes since they’re hidden in massive gas clouds that you can see here. Now thanks to the new NASA telescope launched in 2012 we’ve discovered billions more..
Interviewer: So could you explain to viewers exactly what is a black hole?
Science Correspondent: Well, this may seem like rather obscure physics, but thanks to this new technique using high energy X-rays, we can see through the dust, which led to the discovery of Wi-Fi, so it’s really of enormous benefit…

I may have got some of the science wrong. Maybe it wasn’t WiFi that was discovered thanks to the search for black holes but frozen pizzas, but that doesn’t affect my argument, which is this:
How can you take seriously the explanations of a science correspondent who can’t understand a simple question like “What is it?” or “What’s in it?”
Suppose the subject had really been frozen pizzas and he’d been the cookery correspondent. Failure to understand the question “What’s in it?” would have got him the sack. But this is science, and science can’t be wrong, or irrelevant, or bonkers.

And the relevance to the subject of climate change, and to my disenchantment with the subject, is this:
Day after day someone like Andrew Montford at
reveals someone saying something wrong on the internet, or on the BBC, or in a declaration by the Royal Society, and day after day his attempts at clarification or correction are met with insults and obfuscation, never ever with a straight answer.
You can view the Bishop Hill blog, or the internet, or life itself, as a long unwinding courtroom drama with a verdict at the end where good men and true will announce the truth and the world will move on. Most of Montford’s fans seem to see things like that, but they’re mostly scientists, or at least people with a respect for scientific method and the rules of logic. You can call such people rational human beings, or, if you want to be rude and philosophical about it – “naïve realists”.
If they ever trouble their heads with philosophy, they’d probably agree with Wittgenstein that “the world is what it is and not another thing” and leave it at that – the corollary of Wittgenstein’s dictum being that if you point out to people who think the world is something other than what it is that they’re wrong, they’ll change their minds.
Those of us (arts graduates mostly) who realise that the world is not like that look for other explanations, other motives, and find them rather easily in the domain of psychology. Describing belief in catastrophic man-made global warming as a religious cult, or mass hysteria, and its proponents as liars, charlatans, eco-fascists, fruitcakes or (a new favourite among certain commenters at Bishop Hill) leftist scum – is fun, but ultimately pointless, since it eliminates all possibility of rational dialogue, and can only reinforce the warmists’ often-expressed belief that we sceptics are all liars, charlatans, Big Oil shills, fruitcakes and rightwing scum.
Some of us are, but not all of us. (But that’s the kind of admission that can only lead to more insults, which could bring me back to the Greek crisis – and it will in a minute – but I want for the moment to stay with that interview with the science correspondent.
A more fruitful pathway to an understanding the utter irrationality of the climate non-debate would be a sociological study of the warmist phenomenon. Tiny footsteps are being made in this direction by professional social scientists like José Duarte at
and less successfully, it seems to me, at Nottingham University. See my harsh and no doubt unfair criticism of Amelia Sharman at
and most successfully, as far as I know, by Rupert Darwall. See

My couch surfing which led me to the two interviews of science correspondents suggested to me a more fundamental explanation than mass hysteria or religious fervour. Could the unthinking acceptance of warmism – largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon – have deeper roots – in our attitude to science (and knowledge in general) and in the deformation of the language itself, caused by a wilful ignorance of basic rules of grammar and syntax – things like: a sentence of the form: “What is it?” requires an answer of the form: “It’s…”?
Demanding that a scientist holds a cuddly toy while explaining advances in robotics is so typical of media dumbing down of science that we don’t notice how odd it is. But hey, cricket is complicated too, but most sports reporters leave their teddy bears in the dressing room.
We demand (or rather, the media demands) that scientists keep it simple, but we don’t demand what any primary school teacher would demand – that they answer the question “What is it?” with a description of what it is, and not another thing.
I surfed on, and did find an item on Greece. It was the BBC’s Robert Peston blow-drying his hair below the Acropolis while meaningless garbage dribbled from his lips. This is a top economics correspondent, and what he said made no sense. Couldn’t he have gone back to his hotel room and written down what he wanted to say, if necessary delivering his message in front of a colour photograph of the Parthenon? I know he has a reputation for being peculiar, but does acceptable eccentricity extend to uttering nonsense?

I know I’m just a grumpy old man, and I’ve been criticised here for my grammatical mistakes – significantly by Maurizio Morabito, who writes as well in English as he does in Italian. And therein lies a clue.

I yield to no-one in my contempt for the news coverage of French TV (with the exception of the excellent France24 English language channel) but last night the two rolling news channels BFMTV and I-télé did an excellent job of covering the Greek referendum. For months they’ve been covering the Greek story with ten second shots of Varufakis getting on and off his motorbike, sandwiched between more interesting stuff like heatwaves and football. But yesterday was a referendum, which is a bit like a football match, and while waiting for the result the studios were filled with experts, journalists, politicians – even some Greeks. There was even a spokesperson for the socialist government dragged from her bolthole.
As usual, they all spoke at once, and as usual, the politicians, who don’t speak English, and therefore can’t follow events at
or at
were abysmally ignorant. But at least they all spoke in grammatical sentences, even when exchanging insults. The result was discussion, debate, politics – the fundamental particles of culture and civilisation. Anyone caught burbling would have been drowned out by his interlocutors and not invited again.
A politician in France who fails to accord an adjective correctly is ridiculed and considered unfit for high office. A prole-ish accent will get you ridiculed in England, and the better interviewers on BBC Radio 4 will sometimes demand that the interviewee answer the question, but as for forming connected thoughts in grammatical sentences, just see almost any transcript at Alex Cull’s

Don’t stop me if I’ve said this before (repetition is a privilege of the senile):
The great Austrian journalist Karl Kraus, who ran a journal called Die Fackel between the wars upholding the purity of the German language and denouncing stupidity in all its forms, was once challenged by a friend: “The Japanese are busy massacring people in Manchuria, and all you can worry about is whether people put their commas in the right place.”
to which Kraus replied:
“If people put their commas in the right place, then the Japanese wouldn’t be massacring people in Manchuria.”

Wrong but Wromantic. (And apologies to Maurizio for my erratic placing of brackets.)

Posted in France Italy & the rest, Sociology of Climate Change, Uncategorized, Weirdos | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Censorship of a Climate Sceptic

Benoît Rittaud is a mathematics lecturer at the University of Paris, and the author of “Le Mythe Climatique”. He also runs the climate sceptic blog He’s just written a book called “La Peur Exponentielle” (The Exponential Fear). Here’s an extract from the description on Amazon:

“The modern fear of the exponential is a reality at the same time widespread and little known. Constructed scientifically, although perfectly irrational, it is the source of numerous alarmist beliefs based on the fear that we are soon about to hit the limits of our planet: resource depletion, population explosion, global warming…

“Describing a phenomenon as exponential leads naturally to prophesies of catastrophe, and to the rejection of the other (fears of population explosion, the Jewish usurer etc.)… The last part proposes ways of overcoming this fear: tackling our horror of large numbers, reconsidering our relation to time and infinity…”

Benoît was invited to discuss the book on an hour-long programme on French public radio. Then, suddenly, the programme was cancelled. As the ensuing correspondence makes clear, the cancellation was not because of the contents of the book (essentially mathematical and philosophical) but because of who he is. Here’s a slightly abridged translation of Benoît’s article. The original is at:


I’d been invited on a live radio show to talk about my new book “the Exponential Fear”, when last Tuesday I received a letter announcing that the programme had been cancelled. Without naming the station involved, I’ll just say that it was one of the stations of Radio France. That’s significant for two reasons:

– Radio France has explicitly announced its desire to participate actively in ensuring the success of the Paris Climate Conference in December;

– My climate scepticism has already earned me the cancellation of two interviews on two different stations of Radio France (so this is the third).

Here’s the letter I received:

“We have just finished reading your extremely interesting book. However, we are not able to devote an hour long programme entirely to the opinions of a climate sceptic. Our programme is not one devoted to debate, and we thought that the subject would be purely mathematical and philosophical. Consequently, we are sorry to have to cancel the programme. Thank you for your understanding, yours sincerely, …..”

Because I want to respect their anonymity, I can’t show here that in fact certain of the subjects they’ve tackled recently have been controversial. But note the sentence: “we are not able to devote an hour long programme entirely to the opinions of a climate sceptic.” It’s difficult not to interpret this as a ban on my expressing my opinions in general. In the words of the writer (and I imagine that, given the circumstances, he had weighed them carefully) it’s not the book that’s the problem, but me. For the journalists of Radio France, it’s inexcusable that I should be a climate sceptic, even though I’ve written a book which they consider “very interesting”.

With my faith in human nature and in the possibility given to us all to make honourable amends, I replied as follows:

“Though I was certainly surprised that climate scepticism appears to be sort of crime, I was even more astonished that you should put it forward as a reason for cancelling the programme. For, having read the book which you invited me to discuss, you must know that the climate is far from being its main subject. (I haven’t counted, but roughly twenty pages out of the four hundred must be concerned with the climate. What’s more, I’ve already given four talks about the book, without once mentioning the climate.) There should therefore be no problem in finding a way of discussing my “very interesting” book (as you described it) while avoiding the question of climate, should you wish. We could, for example, discuss the story of the grains of rice on the chessboard and it’s interpretation through the ages, the idea of the “surfinite” as an intellectual alternative to the infinite, the debate over circular time versus cyclical time and the associated mathematics, (notably in Medieval India). There’s plenty of philosophy and mathematics therein, without any mention of climate.

“I cannot imagine that the true reason for cancelling my invitation could be that I’m on some kind of blacklist, in other words, that my opinions on the climate mark me with a seal of infamy, on no matter what subject. On the contrary, I would like to believe that you know how to distinguish between the different opinions an author may hold, and that it is not necessary to be in total – or even partial – agreement with what he says in order to admit the validity of a public debate on the subject.

“I therefore request you to reconsider your position, in which case I will consider the matter closed…”

To which the programme producer replied as follows:

“Thank you for having taken the time to reply. You are not on a ‘blacklist’, and obviously I don’t consider your opinions as a crime.. On the other hand, these opinions – let’s call them ‘climate sceptic’ – appear quite clearly in your work, even if the climate is not mentioned specifically, and I therefore don’t feel able to accept your presence as the sole guest on this live programme, in the absence of a contrary point of view….”

Note the quality of the reasoning here. No, you’re not on a blacklist (whatever makes you think that!) It’s just that your book contains some examples of bad thoughts, and that “I don’t feel able to to accept your presence..”

I confess this episode doesn’t reassure me about the liberty of the media.

Posted in France Italy & the rest | Tagged | 4 Comments

CO2 – the Opera; by Giorgio Battistelli

The long-awaited opera based on Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” plays at La Scala, Milan from 16 to 29 May, though Gore’s name no longer appears. Instead, credit is given to James Lovelock, Richard Mabey, and the environmentalit periodical “Resurgence”. Tickets are from eleven to 150 euros.

According to an article on the La Scala website by Ian Burton: “CO2 was conceived as a rotating prayer wheel of our current concerns an anxieties about our climate, what we have done to change it, and what remedies, if any are possible … I knew that before attempting to understand what man had done to the earth and the climate surrounding it, I needed to say something about the splendours of creation, and to bookend the whole “non-narrative” opera with two mythical versions of the Creation and the Apocalypse. The first derived from the wonderfully paradoxical Vedic scriptures of Hinduism … with Shiva’s dance of creation and final dance of destruction; and secondly the Judaeo/Christian version of events at the beginning of time, as written in the Book of Genesis in the Jewish Old Testament, and also in St. John’s account, at the end of the New Testament, in The Book of Revelation…”

The Italian equivalent of Radio 3 has a wonderful “after the match” opera programme whose participants demonstrate all the obsessive opinionated enthusiasm of football fans. If Maurizio or anyone is tuning in, it would be nice to have some (translated) reactions.

Here’s the synopsis. Nitpickers will note that the librettist seems to think tsunamis are a symptom of manmade global warming. Fans of Vedic hymns and the Apocalypse of St John will not be fazed.

The climatologist David Adamson begins a lecture on the problems of climate change.
Scene 1 (Creation)
As Adamson contemplates the beginning of the world, scientific creation theories are contrasted with religious and mythic ones.
Scene 2 (Airport)
Passengers are caught up in a strike of air traffic controllers. Adamson is amongst them, on his way to the Climate Change Convention in Kyoto.
Scene 3 (Kyoto)
International delegates defend their nations’ individual interests and dispute their conflicting positions.
Scene 4 (Hurricanes)
Adamson describes how Co2 pollution in the earth’s atmosphere can lead to extreme weather conditions, and explains how hurricanes are named.
Scene 5 (Eden)
Adamson imagines Adam, Eve and the serpent in the garden of Eden, and reflects on the infinite variety of plants and animal species – in particular snakes.
Scene 6 (Supermarket)
Women are buying food, enjoying the far-flung origins of their favourite produce.
Scene 7 (Tsunami)
On a beach in Thailand, Mrs. Mason talks to a hotel manager about her brother-in-law who was drowned in the Tsunami the year before. She reflects on the causes of the disaster.
Scene 8 (Gaia)
Adamson discusses practical environmentalism and James Lovelock’s “The Gaia Hypothesis”. Gaia herself appears, and describes the catastrophic damage man has inflicted on her, resulting in the ruin of her atmosphere and the disorientation of her seasons.
Scene 9 (Apocalypse)
Adamson envisions an apocalyptic end of the world.
Ending his lecture, Adamson tries to reconcile his environmental despair with his sense of responsibility towards the planet.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Denial 101

Many thanks to Barry Woods for sending me this:

It’s a free 7-week on-line course on “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” run by the University of Queensland. Among the instructors are Fellow for the Global Change Institute John Cook, University of Queensland Environmental Scientist Dana Nuccitelli, and Professor Scott Mandia.

Courses started yesterday. There’s an optional questionnaire to fill in. I’m just about to do the questionnaire and attack the first week’s lesson,. The course apparently demands an effort of 1-2 hours per week. I’ll report back if I’m not too tired.

Posted in Weirdos | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

Rusbridger’s Dementia

One of the nice things you can do on WordPress is see which of your articles people are reading. With 177 articles up so far, I find this most useful since many of them I can’t even remember writing.
One which seems to get a fair amount of attention is this one
It’s like a million others (well, 176 others). It quotes a Guardian article claiming 400,000 deaths a year due to climate change. It’s not as many as the estimated two million a year African women who cough themselves to death over cooking fires fuelled by cowpats due to lack of clean coal or gas fired electricity, but it’s a lot of people. The figure comes from the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, which is produced by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, which “convenes … some of the countries most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change” e.g. Bangladesh, Costa Rica, and Vietnam. They offloaded the job of writing the report onto a Spanish NGO called DARA (Director: Ross Mountain). But DARA didn’t actually write the report. That was done by Commons Consultants, a Management Consultancy based in Copenhagen.
It’s two and a half years since I looked at this report. In that time, assuming the Guardian report (quoting the Climate Vulnerable Forum, quoting the Spanish NGO DARA, quoting the Danish Management Consultancy Commons Consultants) has got it right, a million people have been killed by climate change. It seemed only right, if only in honour of the million dead, to go back and survey the killing fields.
The Guardian, is in the middle of an unprecedented campaign to persuade us to stop using fossil fuels that are causing the climate change which (according to the Guardian) has killed a million people since Fiona Harvey’s 2012 article. So no doubt they’ve followed up Fiona’s article with reports on those million deaths. I mean, Editor-in-Chief Rusbridger is complaining that it’s difficult to report climate catastrophe because it’s so slow – but a million deaths! If climate editor John Vidal can write eyewitness reports on the global-warming-induced suffering in Tanzania while on a flight to Pretoria, surely the Graun’s dozen-strong environment team can find something to say on those million corpses. A bit of imagination, guys!

Why do I assume that Rusbridger is not a psychopathic liar like his employees, but an innocent victim of his own stupidity? I find the time to scan the five articles per day on climate change published in the paper he edits, and to research one from time to time. Why shouldn’t he?
My loyalty to the Guardian goes back a long time, and has survived a thousand disappointments. I wasn’t there when they supported the abolitionists against the British interests in the slave states of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. I wasn’t even there when they supported Stalin’s atrocities in the Ukraine (according to Richard Drake in a comment on a previous post).
I learned long ago that they were capable of tergiversation and worse when it came to the crimes of our American friends (in Vietnam, for instance) and of a discreet silence about the shortcomings of the European Dream, for example when British Foreign Minister Steel and French Foreign Minister Juppé decided that the Bolshie multi-ethnic population of Sarajevo, with their irritating insistence on tolerance, were not worth defending against the geopolitically more important Serbs who were picking them off one by one from the surrounding hills. (Steel has long disappeared from the scene, but Juppé stands a chance of being President of France in 2017, despite his six month suspended sentence for corruption… where was I?) But it was only around 2007 that I discovered that the Guardian was systematically lying to me about climate change, and I admit that my first reaction had all the touching naivety of the Soviet dissident who, when hauled off to the Gulag, cried out: “Just wait till Comrade Stalin hears about this!”
So I started commenting on their climate change articles, in the hope of alerting editor in chief Rusbridger to the fact that Monbiot and the others at Guardian Environment were a bunch obsessive liars. It didn’t work, which didn’t surprise me when I transcribed Rusbridger in the role of discussion chairman at a Greenpeace event. He insisted on introducing each participant by announcing the number of followers on his Twitter account, and managed to insert into the debate a comment about how profoundly he’d been affected by Stephen Emmott’s plea at the Royal Court to teach your children how to kill climate refugees.
It didn’t work. (My campaign to alert Rusbridger to the shortcomings of his underlings, I mean. For the Emmott/Rusbridger/Royal Court plan to shoot climate refugees, we’ll have to see.) He’s still there, still campaigning to ban electricity when the wind isn’t blowing, still hoping to abolish plastic by the year 2030.
I’ve just finished transcribing the fourth part of the Rusbridger/Guardian Circle Jerk to be put up eventually at Mytranscriptbox. But I do recommend that you listen to it at
(click on 4 Risks)
The Story So Far is that Rusbridger has realised that the Paris Climate conference will be an epic failure, and so has decided to pin his hopes of saving mankind on a conversation he had with Bill McKibben in Stockholm, during which he was persuaded that the owners of the world’s megatrillion barrels of oil could be shamed into leaving it in the ground. Before starting on the chaps who own the stuff (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Scotland) he thought he’d have a go at the chaps who extract it, or rather, more exactly, the chaps who own the shares of the chaps who extract it. Or, even more exactly, two of those millions of chaps who, being known for their liberal tendencies, might be persuaded to divest of their shares in the interest of saving the planet.
But the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust told Rusbridger and the 174,000 readers who signed his petition to get stuffed. So Rusbridger turned his attention instead to his very own Guardian Media Group, the 800 million pound investment fund which exists to ensure the survival of the Guardian In Perpetuity.
(Suddenly Rusbridger’s obsession begins to make sense. Wouldn’t you like to know that the thing you’d devoted your life to – the family farm, an orphanage in Bangladesh, your collection of model soldiers of the Napoleonic wars – was guaranteed in perpetuity thanks to the backing of an 800 million pound trust fund?)
So imagine Rusbridger’s chagrin when he discovered that his campaign to divest from Big Oil was backed by a trust fund that invested in the same. There followed an urgent meeting of the GMG which decided, on purely economic grounds of course, in accordance with their statutes, to divest. Do listen to the conversation. It’s pure Ibsen. Or Pinter. Or Beckett. Or Jarry. Anyway, it’s worthy of the Royal Court. Here’s an extract:
Alan Rusbridger: Yeah, I’ve just had avocado on sourdough for my breakfast. I don’t know what Neil’s had.
Neil Berkett (chairman of the Guardian Media Group): I had muesli..
Alan: You had muesli? i can’t believe it!
Neil (laughing hysterically): I had muesli, I had raspberries, and I had goat yoghurt
AR: God!
NB: I’m absolutely genuinely serious, that’s what I had for breakfast this morning.

Yes folks, this is the Biggest Story In the World. Told by the Biggest Storytellers.

And while I was writing this, episode Five has just gone up. In which Guardian Economics Editor Larry Elliott prevents the World’s Worst Economic Crash.

This was once one of the world’s great newspapers. ,What happens to it matters.

Posted in Guardian CommentisFree, Weirdos | Tagged , | 18 Comments

Rusbridger: “This is the most Terrible Campaign”

Alex Cull has just published a transcript of the latest episode of the Graun’s Podcast of Doom at
The original podcast can be found at
A million thanks Alex. These documents are truly amazing. It’s like listening to a bunch of adolescent misfits sitting around in a pub planning to overthrow society.

I suspect many at the Graun are going to distance themselves pretty soon from this farce. An economics editor like Larry Elliott needs his contacts in finance and industry. This kind of nonsense could ruin his reputation.

Take this surrealist scene, where some of the rodents announce their early retirement from seafaring…

Alan Rusbridger: We’ve set out the basic reporting, so, um… James is putting together a list of the pieces, […] So we haven’t really geared up the investigatory bits of this, yet, have we?

James Randerson: Not really, because Nick Davies told me that he’s basically unavailable for the time. Is David Leigh a possibility?

Alan Rusbridger: David Leigh claims to have retired, again. And I’ve told him: he can’t. […]. One of the things I underestimated was that real life intervenes. […]And anyway, when you meet with your colleagues, they’ve all got different ideas of what it’s going to be.

James Randerson: Well, I’ve asked Larry Elliott to answer what I think is the most fundamental question: how do we make this fossil fuel transition? Can we even make it? You know – do we need some kind of voluntary recession? […] Um…

Alan Rusbridger: Bill McKibben wants to go a bit earlier, because he thinks there’s going to be action in America. I think our team want to push it back a bit.

James Randerson: You know, it’s all very much in flux, really.

Alan Rusbridger: So, we’re, sort of, still feeling a slight tension between the urge to go fast and go slow.

It would be great fun taking quotes at random (which is what the creative editor person has done in assembling these podcasts) and turning them into a script – but of what? – a comic opera? A graphic novel? A play for the Royal Court?

Rusbridger: “… in that sense, this is the most terrible campaign …. it’s not too bleak to say we’re all doomed.”

and again: “how can 97% of scientists lecture the rest of us and yet allow their main grant-giving charity not put their money where their mouth is?”

Posted in Guardian CommentisFree, Uncategorized, Weirdos | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Rusbridger’s Balls

Alex Cull has recently published two wonderfully weird transcripts of podcasts at Guardian Environment, at and at They confirm something we’ve all suspected for years. The editor and top journalists of a major newspaper have gone stark raving mad. I do recommend anyone fascinated by the death throes of a once great newspaper to to read the transcripts, and even to listen to the original podcasts, which can be found at under the heading “Keep it in the ground”. The first one is at It recounts how Rusbridger decided to celebrate his last few months as Guardian editor-in-chief with a campaign to bring climate change to the forefront of politics. It all started, (he says) with a chance meeting with climate activist Bill McKibben in Stockholm where they’d both flown to receive prizes for their services to humanity (well-deserved in Rusbridger’s case, I may add). They dined together, and Rusbridger, who admits to “being not very good at numbers” came away from the meeting with a slogan “The oil in the soil and the coal in the hole.” (As a children’s skipping rhyme it’s not bad – on a par with: “One McKibben, two McKibben, three McKibben, four…” – as a policy for one of the world’s great powers – not so much…) As I mentioned in a comment at “Few things in life are inevitable, except death and retirement, and Rusbridger is facing the latter. The Guardian podcast claims that Rusbridger caught “climatitis” three months ago in Sweden from meeting Bill McKibben, which is an odd claim given that in Rusbridger’s 20 years as editor of the Guardian he’s published about 15,000 articles on climate change, at least 25 of which were written by McKibben. In a debate sponsored by Greenpeace in 2012 Rusbridger was already boasting about having ten or eleven full time climate journalists, each one with three or four degrees (doesn’t he know that anything over two degrees is dangerous?) and about the same time Environment editor James Randerson told the Times of India that climate change was “official Guardian policy”. So it’s a bit odd to see a podcast headlining Rusbridger’s pet project and featuring Rusbridger himself claiming that he only caught the bug in 2014. But then his journalistic project is to change the world, not to pursue the normal journalistic ends of truth and rational argument. Which brings me to a tentative hypothesis about Rusbridger and the way the entire climate debate is conducted: when you’re faced with the inexorable, anything goes.” One of the most recent Guardian articles so far (but they’re coming thick and fast, and especially thick – as two short planks – or as two Plancks short of a Quark, to be exact) at begins: “The world has much more coal, oil and gas in the ground than it can safely burn. That much is physics. Anyone studying the question with an open mind will almost certainly come to a similar conclusion: if we and our children are to have a reasonable chance of living stable and secure lives 30 or so years from now, according to one recent study 80% of the known coal reserves will have to stay underground, along with half the gas and a third of the oil reserves. If only science were enough.” Alas, science is never enough. 30 years or so from now, according to the most pessimistic forecasts of the IPCC, the world will have warmed about a degree or so. An intelligent person would observe that the world hasn’t warmed at all in the past eighteen years, and might wonder about the reliability of IPCC forecasts. But Rusbridger is not an intelligent person (he admits himself in his very first podcast that maths is not his strong point.) Still, even a very stupid person should be able to see that physics doesn’t actually have anything to say about how many tons of coal should stay underground. Physicists don’t dig coal. Chinamen do that. (And Poles and Australians, and a diminishing number of Britons.) Which brings me to my politico-psychological conclusion. British coal is being kept in the ground (and I remember an article – in the Guardian – that stated that there was enough coal in one deep mine in Leicestershire to meet Britain’s energy requirements for four centuries) because of one person – the late Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher, in her battle against the miners, taught the world a lesson of historic significance, which has been well learnt by a number of democratically elected leaders since – Putin and Netanyahu among others – that a democratically elected government can do anything it likes to stifle a popular movement. The left in Britain was castrated by Thatcher’s victory over the miners. Rusbridger is the living representative of that event. His shrill cries reverberate in our media – though his petition to keep the Pole in his hole and the African in his unlighted smoke-filled mud hut received a tenth of the signatures of the petition to bring Clarkson back on Top Gear. He is a force to be reckoned with – even singing soprano.

Posted in Guardian CommentisFree, Weirdos | Tagged | 14 Comments

Are We Downhearted?

Since deciding to renounce blogging on climate science a week ago, I see that Alex has come to a similar decision
I’ve continued to stalk at theConversation, for instance at
but also on articles about jazz
and Herodotus.
Who knows how many converts may come over when mild-mannered musicologists and classicists discover that among their (alas, rather rare) fans is a rabid denialist of climate change?
Jazz fans are only too aware of the lacunae in their knowledge due to the wanton destruction of evidence. You don’t have to be a mad mediaeval psychopath to destroy precious works of art. Think of Bill Cotton Jnr, head of light entertainment at the BBC in the seventies, who reused tapes of recordings of jazz greats like Charlie Mingus (recording tape was expensive).
Herodotus, whose belief in the existence of hairy gold digging ants has been justified by modern research
was sceptical when scepticism was justified in his eyes. For example when he rejected the obviously absurd claim that the midday sun could be seen in the north:
“He also passes on dismissive reports from Phoenician sailors that, while circumnavigating Africa, they “saw the sun on the right side while sailing westwards’. Owing to this brief mention, which is included almost as an afterthought, it has been argued that Africa was indeed circumnavigated by ancient seafarers, for this is precisely where the sun ought to have been.”
Oh dear. That shows that sceptics are sometimes wrong. Are we downhearted?

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

..and Thanks for the Fish

Thanks to all commenters at my antepenultimate post for their kind words. As you can see, my final curtain call was about as final as that of any “Grande Dame du théatre”.
Three things persuaded me that I couldn’t go on like this. First, a symptom of our success is that it is impossible to comment intelligently on the climate sceptic scene at the moment without first consulting the ever-growing number of intelligent climate sceptic sites, which takes an enormous amount of time.

Secondly, as a result of my promise to act as an ambassador between the French and English-speaking sites, I found myself consulting even more sites than before. And commenting in French (which I’ve been doing on all sorts of subjects) costs me no little intellectual effort.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I find myself more and more in disagreement with the sceptical consensus, which seems to be that we’re winning the scientific argument, and we only have to wait for our opponents to acknowledge the fact and roll over and die. Unlike many of the hard scientists and engineers in the sceptic camp, I believe in the importance (and validity) of the social sciences. Society moves in mysterious ways, and they’re not always rational.

Catweazle’s comment above can serve as an example of what I mean. I feel honoured to have readers like Catweazle, who is obviously infinitely more intelligent than Cameron, Hollande, or Obama. But intelligence butters no parsnips when the planet is in danger.
And of course, the ecological danger facing the planet tends to obscure certain other things happening. Has anyone noticed that one European democracy (Russia) has just invaded another European democracy (Ukraine)? (Putin, like it or not, was elected). Remember Fukuyama and the End of History?

Has anyone noticed that two thousand bonkers bandits just routed the 200,000 strong Iraqi army last June, while everyone was watching the football? The only journalist to my knowledge to give a rational explanation of events in Iraq is the Independent’s Patrick Cockburn. His father Claud Cockburn edited a communist scandal sheet in the thirties, and was resurrected by Private Eye in the seventies. His brother, the recently deceased Alexander Cockburn, was one of the founders of the American leftwing blog Counterpunch, who dared to defy the global warming consensus in a number of articles, before being silenced by George Monbiot.

Which brings me to a fourth reason why I’m going to have less time for blogging. I’ve taken to political activism for the first time in several decades, and I’ll be campaigning for our local communist candidate in the coming weeks in the election for the “Conseils Générals” (= County Councils).

The communists locally have allied themselves with the socialists, but not with the Greens. Our département (= county) has been socialist for 16 years, providing a county-wide bus service for a flat fare of one euro, and a wide range of financing for the handicapped, the young unemployed, etc. It’s a toss up whether the département gets taken over by the right (which has already taken over two thirds of the département’s communes, privatising and selling off all they can to their wives, concubines and associates) or by the far right – the Front National, whose President Jean Marie le Pen used to boast about having torturing Arabs, until it became a crime, whereupon he claimed he’d been lying and denied having tortured Arabs.

But there’s a fifth reason. I used to be an illustrator, drawing polar bears for children’s comics (oh the irony), images of Christ, Buddha and various Hindu Gods (and, dare I say it, Muhammad?) for school text books on religious instruction, and even the odd (and I mean odd) illustration for gay contact magazines.

I’ve got this ambition to illustrate the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto, and even the Orlando Innamorato of Matteo Boiardo. Others have done it before me, (and by others I mean Fragonard, Gustave Doré and Fabrizio Clerici, not to mention Rubens and Delacroix) but no one’s got it quite right. There’s an 80-year-old guy in Marseille who’s had a good try, a couple of twins in California who’ve done some wonderful stuff, and a German lady into bondage at who’s got to the heart of the problem with some witty collages. I’ve got a lot of ideas on the subject, and I really think I can do better than any of them.

The Orlando epic starts In the corner of the south of France where I happen to live, where (according to the Orlando epics) Charlemagne’s paladins fought the son of the Emperor of China, and lost.

In the local university where I used to teach there are two thousand Chinese students who are way ahead of the local French students in terms of motivation and in terms of their level of English. One of them recently murdered the secretary of the sociology department, who happened to be the mother of a student he fancied. He is currently interned in a psychiatric hospital in France. The university invited us to provide any evidence we might have as to his psychological state. I didn’t reply. His English is excellent. He told me he wanted to go to Paris to see the tennis at the Paris Open. My evidence as to his evident intelligence and sanity could have led to him being repatriated and executed.

It’s also the corner of France where a half a million Spanish anarchists arrived in 1939 in what Nancy Mitford described in her comic novel “the Pursuit of Love” as “the greatest displacement of population in history” (There have been greater since) and where they were interned in concentration camps. It’s also where the great Spanish poet Antonio Machado and the great German communist journalist Walter Benjamin both died within months of each other, one having escaped from Spain, the other having tried in vain to escape there.

Ariosto’s Orlando epic moves swiftly from the south of France to St Andrew’s in Scotland (where my daughter did her Erasmus year) before circumnavigating the globe (several years before Magellan) moving on to the Moon and back, via Japan, the Middle East and Africa.

It’s taken me a certain effort to understand sixteenth century Italian, especially the Padano dialect of Matteo Baiardo. Believe me, it’s much more difficult, (and more interesting) than the temperature records of this or that 12’X12′ squared portion of the globe. Things happened in 16th century Europe. (Macchiavelli, Erasmus.. and then there was Giordano Bruno, who wrote to his friend, our own Sir Philip Sidney, warning him of the whiles of women, before being burned at the stake for heresy…)

It’s possible (although we’ll never know for certain) that word came to the tiny state of Ferrara of Columbus’s voyages, as well of who-knows-what voyage to the East via Venice. Whatever, it’s sure that the delicious JanThor and her images from Japanese porn sites have more to tell us about the mindset of Renaissance courtiers like Boiardo and Ariosto than the witterings of academics in a hundred Italian Literature departments.

Do enjoy the images of the very fit Jan Thor, and of the Californian brothers whose names escape me. Go to the National Gallery and appreciate their collection of paintings of the Ferrarese school – the best outside Italy. And expect something soon from me on WordPress.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Allo ‘Allo

Hello again. Just to let you know about the launch of an “Association Francophone des Climato-Optimistes” (AFCO). You can read about it at
and their manifesto is at
Membership costs 50 euros, which I find a bit steep. The founder is one Christian Gerondeau, author of “Écologie, la grande arnaque” (Ecology – the Big Scam) and “CO2: un mythe planétaire”. As President Chirac’s “Monsieur Sécurité” he reduced road deaths from third world levels to a level comparable to that of the UK. As a defender of nuclear power and the automobile industry, he’s treated in the media as a cross between Jeremy Clarkson and Matt Ridley. That’s what you get for saving thousands of French lives.
I’ll keep you updated on developments.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Meanwhile our President Hollande is currently in the Philippines drumming up support for the Paris Conference on the Climate. He gave a speech in which he attributed the recent typhoon which caused 4,000 deaths (and which he correctly identified as a “catastrophe naturelle”) to global warming (or “dérèglement climatique”) citing the IPCC as his authority. He took two actresses with him, which does seem rather daring considering there are important local elections in three weeks’ time in which the socialists are expected to be wiped out. Is this his message to the electors? “Hey guys! Remember me? I’m the socialist president, the one who visits actresses at 2am on a moped. And I’ve got two of them here with me”.
I caught a political chat programme this evening on which a Green senator claimed that there were 1.2 million climate refugees in Syria, and that 60% of current conflicts in the world were due to global warming. The other participants – people with intelligent things to say about Sunnis, Shiites, Ukrainians and Russians, didn’t contradict her. How could they? It would be like disputing the interpretation of the Koran with an Imam.
One guy (a blog owner who’s become a frequent participant in TV discussions (Montford where art thou?) did say something interesting. One of the actresses accompanying Hollande to sell the catastrophic global warming message apparently believes that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. She also believes that the moon landing was a hoax. Should we tell Lew?

Posted in France Italy & the rest, Uncategorized | Leave a comment