More Bad Science from the alt-right


Speaking of the Alt-right, their house journal has been getting its knickers in a twist over global temperatures. Resident UK spreader of warming nonsense, James Delingpole got himself somewhat agitated about the fall in temperatures after the 2016 El Nino.

 Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.

But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.

As happens so frequently, Delingpole reveals the stark evidence for global warming inadvertently in his critique. According to Delingpole, we are now in a chilly El Nino. But what do the actual temperatures show?

Dr Roy Spencer is himself a climate change ‘skeptic’ and the satellite temperature data has been lauded by Delingpole in the past.So what are the satellite data showing?

Yes, temperature anomalies have dropped since the 2016 EL Nino peak but they are still high. Indeed November 2016 is substantially higher than most of the data points in the satellite record.


Taking Delingpole’s blather seriously would imply that his chilly La Nina is HOTTER than early 1980’s El Nino’s.



  1. greghullender

    It’s the same sort of calculated dishonesty that I first heard from Fundamentalists trying to argue against Evolution, and, later, from their arguments against homosexuality. They start by knowing the conclusion that want to reach (e.g. “there is no warming,” “homosexuality is bad,” “Evolution doesn’t happen”) and then they twist the facts (or just make things up) until they reach that conclusion. They seem to have the belief that if the conclusion is true (and they take the conclusion on faith), then anything that supports it is true too. Or, worse, that any lie that supports the conclusion is justified.

    What baffles me is that Climate Change denial has become a Christian issue. I can see why Evolution and homosexuality became issues, why Climate Change?


    • Mark

      Has it become a specifically Christian issue? Or is it just that there’s a correlation between being generally anti-science and the noisier end of US fundamentalism?


      • delagar

        It’s because the real religion of the United States is not Christianity, but capitalism. You may blaspheme against Jesus and his tenets all you like, but do not seek to undermine capitalism. And most conservatives / most people on the right in the US (which means most Evangelicals) see climate change science as a threat to unfettered capitalism.


    • camestrosfelapton

      Because they are graphs of different things.

      That David Rose article (which I think Delingpole was also citing) [is a graph of the difference of one months temperature to the next*. So, for example, two cold months in succession would be a small change in the graph and likewise too warm months. The drop is from ‘really hot’ to ‘uncharacteristically warm’]^^^

      What both Rose and Delingpole are pointing at is that there was a big drop from a really high El Nino.

      I haven’t checked the veracity of the data in Rose’s graph** but the basic notion is not incorrect. Temperatures fall after a peak El Nino.

      What the sattelite data shows is the new post-El Nino normal (which Rose and Delingpole are claiming we are in) is STILL really warm by comparison.

      Let’s put it another way, assume the claim of a massive drop in temp is correct (seems plausible) then EVEN AFTER a sudden drop global temperatures are still VERY HIGH.

      One more analogy. Imagine you fall off the top of Mount Everest. You fall a long way. Even after the fall you are still really high up.

      *[also it is restricted to just land temperatures]
      **[also whether it is changes in anomalies which adjust for seasonal differences or changes in average temperature which don’t. With the Northern Hemisphere*** heading into winter, then if it is the second it is even more unremarkable]
      ***[There’s more land in the NH than the SH, so for land temps seasonal impacts skew the global data]
      ^^^[Oops, nope. I’m wrong. I was thinking of a different graph that is floating around. Looks like it is land temp]


      • thephantom182

        The reason I mention is because I think it was the graph I showed that they were talking about. Land temp average. vs. global average.

        Then there’s this thing here:

        Point being, when you see so much effort being expended to make people shut up, the intelligent thing to do is go find out what the fuss is about. When I see that the Hillary Clinton campaign and John Podesta are spending a bunch of money to shut guys up and get them fired… that makes me interested.

        I’ve seen exactly this type of behavior going of for so long with the climate thing, I automatically assume if it’s in the newspaper, it’s a lie. I’ve seen it plenty of other places too, where I have much more expertise. If they lie about one thing that you’re an expert in, chances are they’re lying about that thing where you aren’t an expert.


      • camestrosfelapton

        //Point being, when you see so much effort being expended to make people shut up, the intelligent thing to do is go find out what the fuss is about. //

        Very good point. Why do they spend so much time trying to get people to shut up about global warming. You should maybe check what the fuss is about.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Mark

    Uh, when I followed that Breitbart link I got a pop-up urging a campaign to boycott Kellogg’s.
    Has someone literally pee’d in their cornflakes?