James Delingpole

Sorry, Anne Glover, but you were just too scientific for the Green Blob

Holding the ‘correct’ view on climate change is one thing, but you also have to swallow the official line on GM crops

22 November 2014

9:00 AM

22 November 2014

9:00 AM

The Green Blob which did for Owen Paterson has claimed another victim. Her name is Anne Glover and she was, until recently, chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission.

‘I believe her outstanding background and calibre will bring invaluable expertise to the Commission,’ said former president José Manuel Barroso when she was appointed in December 2011. Indeed they did, and that was the problem. As with its chief accountants (see Marta Andreasen), so it is with its chief scientists: the very last thing the EU wants is pesky experts presenting inconvenient truths which threaten to impede it from doing whatever the hell it likes. Especially not if those truths upset its powerful allies in the green lobby.

Up until May this year, Professor -Glover had seemed an ideal fit for the job. Most importantly — as Alex Salmond’s former chief scientist — she held the ‘correct’ views on climate change, even to the point of suggesting that global warming might lengthen the hours of daylight in Scotland.

But then she made the fatal mistake of being rather too outspoken and independent in a speech to Eurochambres, the Association of the European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, on the subject of the manipulation of science for political ends sometimes known as ‘policy-based evidence-making’.


One of the worst examples, she noted, was the EU’s ‘Reach’ regulation on chemicals adopted in 2006. Though as many as 36 different independent impact assessment studies had demonstrated that this would have a disastrous effect on business, the EU preferred to ignore them all in favour of its own impact study which, unsurprisingly, showed that Reach was a jolly good thing.

Another example she might have mentioned was the EU’s ban in May last year on neonicotinoids — an effective pesticide which till then was widely used in Britain on crops like oil seed rape, and which green campaigners had decided on the flimsiest of evidence was causing bee colonies to collapse. This turned out, on closer examination, to have nothing to do with science — which is why it was so heavily opposed by Paterson when he was environment secretary. Rather, it was horsetrading. The French beekeepers’ union had bullied their socialist environment minister Stéphane Le Foll into introducing a national ban. Le Foll had then sought to even the playing field by pulling strings with one of his -compatriots, Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, at the European Food Safety Agency. Once she had brought in an EU-wide ban, Geslain-Lanéelle landed a new plum job. By happy coincidence, it involved working directly for Le Foll as France’s -director-general for agricultural, agri-food and territorial policies.

In short, Professor Glover had every right to be concerned by the way the EU -routinely twists scientific evidence to advance its regulatory agenda. The practice, she noted, is akin to the EU deciding to ban credit cards because credit cards lead to personal debt — and then commissioning a series of ‘independent’ impact assessment studies to justify the decision. But the consultancies producing these studies would have little incentive to say anything to contradict the EU’s political agenda. ‘If they want repeat business, [they] are not going to go out and find the evidence to show that this is a crazy idea.’

The thing that signed Professor Glover’s death warrant wasn’t her defence of integrity and the scientific method in general, but her courage in speaking out on genetically modified crops. As a molecular biologist she could find no evidence to justify the EU’s opposition to GM: it was a ‘form of madness’.

This was too much for the Green Blob. A number of environmental campaign groups, led by Greenpeace, wrote to the new EU Commission President Jean-Claude -Juncker urging that Professor Glover be sacked because of her ‘one-sided, partial opinions on the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture, repeatedly claiming that there was a scientific consensus about their safety’.

Last week Juncker obliged, demonstrating to anyone who didn’t know this already just how intimate is the relationship between the European Commission and the Green Blob. As seasoned EU-watcher Richard North explains, ‘In order to expand its powers, the EU likes to be seen to be addressing issues of popular concern and the environment is ideal for this, not only because it’s fashionable, but because pollution has no borders. So it’s the perfect excuse for the EU to impose supra-national policies on nation states.’ Indeed, many green NGOs receive a large proportion of their funding from EU grants: the quid pro quo being that their campaigns — e.g. over neonicotinoids — give the illusion of independent, popular pressure being applied to the EU, urging it to do what it wanted to do all along.

The only amusing part of this sorry affair is the division Professor Glover’s sacking has caused among the greenies. While Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the other anti-GM lobby groups are crowing, other environmentalists such as Mark Lynas — the man who once splatted a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and who staged that propaganda photograph of the Maldives government holding its cabinet meeting underwater — are incandescent. Lynas wrote: ‘Since when did environmental groups, whose campaigns on issues like climate change always contain frequent references to “the science”, lobby to remove scientists from the halls of power?’

Well indeed, Mark, but that’s the problem with your lot all over. You fetishise ‘the science’ when it suits you. You anathematise it when it doesn’t. Maybe it’s time you put your ideological obsessions to one side and remind yourselves that true science is altogether beyond politics. As Charles Darwin once put it — and as Anne Glover has bravely reminded us at the cost of her job — ‘A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections — a mere heart of stone.’

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Don Forth

    This article is riddled with factual inaccuracy and tainted by prejudice and dogma. You rightly point out that Glover, as a scientist with integrity, had to advise on the basis of the best evidence available. Those whom you pejoratively describe as the “green blob” are, you say, selective in the science they adhere to. This is, of course, true but you omit your own selectivity in choosing which science to believe.
    Mark Lynas has undergone a conversion because he was able to listen to and accept the science on genetic modification. I very much look forward to your arriving at the same level of consistency in terms of the scientific consensus when you publish your thoughts on anthropomorphically induced climate change. This at least might give Anne Glover, whom you erroneously describe as having been sacked, some cause for amusement. For her, it’s all about evidence.

    • jamesdelingpole

      Anthropomorphic climate change, eh? Gosh, you’re clearly WELL up to speed with the topic – so I quite understand your confidence in pronouncing so firmly on the subject. I suppose that’s why you feel no need to give examples of the factual inaccuracy with which the article is “riddled.” Basically, you’re the Pope, aren’t you?

      • Christian

        That’s ‘His holiness’ to you……..

      • Don Forth

        Gosh, you’re doing sarcasm? Perhaps you should stick to the prejudice and dogma that you don’t deny.
        Inaccuracies? The entire article is based on (1) the fact that Juncker has sacked Glover. Not true, and (2) the position of CSA has not been continued because of green pressure. Not true. Whilst this has been widely speculated in the far right press, there is no evidence to support the theory. You have every right to speculate, but don’t pass it off as fact.
        Remember that holding the ‘correct’ view on GM crops is one thing, but you also have to swallow the official line on climate change. See what I did there, Francis?

      • Chris Oliver

        James, you have the edge on Don and the rest of us inasmuch as your column is subedited. The rest of us don’t have subeditors changing our inattentive anthropomorphics to anthropogenics. Having once been a Facebook friend of yours (till I got bored and unfriended you) I know how crap your unedited writing can be, and readers of the unedited AND edited Delingpoo would know how even more crap your reasoning is.

        • dado_trunking

          jeeeez, some serious dog do yoghurt dished out here today! A right cat fight 😉

      • goatmince

        … who do you think you are kidding, James?

        Either you hack it that no one upvoted this and the other piffle or you don’t. You are not playing fair so you will be scrutinised for not playing fair.

        I am the goat and I do not mince my words.

      • Mnestheus

        Delingpole is piling up spiritual credit in left-wing heaven for being obtuse enough to do the darkest Greens work for them.

        His Holiness the anthropomorphic Pope already has his encyclical writers winding up a stemwinder anathematizing bad catholics who , contra naturam, deny the reality of what watermelons exaggerate with greater zeal than they hype it .

    • Right-Minded

      I assume the picture of Orwell you have displayed is some sort of irony…

    • Guest

      Anthropomorphic? I didn’t think the Greens were quite that insane?!

  • In2minds

    Lynas – “who staged that propaganda photograph of the Maldives government holding its cabinet meeting underwater”

    Thank you for reminding me, I’d forgotten all about that. But then that’s the Green Blob for you, one forgettable and stupid stunt after another. I have, like many people, become immune to their bleating. However, it does serve to mark out the difference between politicians, Jean Claude-Juncker on the one hand or Owen Paterson on the other.

    • RadioJockhadistan

      Owen Paterson led the way as usual in his GWPF speech.

      After a decade of windmill imports, Britain is now set to import the next set of Danish/German inventions. Local CHP.

      He said it as it is. We know he must be right about almost everything.

  • Right-Minded

    I admire you for fighting the lies and misinformation of the all powerful green lobby James, it’s scary how much influence they now have – as you say they now have the power to create the truth based on indisputable ‘evidence’.

    The normal way powerful and corrupt lobby’s like this would be overcome is by spreading the word (people power), but the public are so brainwashed at this point if you start contending the ‘facts’ of climate change, you’re immediately dismissed – even by know-nothings; it’s simply too far-gone. The same way people are indoctrinated to think their livelihoods depend on our continued subservience to the EU.

    We will keep crippling our economy with ineffective and damaging green policies, people’s energy bills will continue to rise under the illusion that the evil energy corporations are to blame, all the while China/India/Brazil etc. will keep building coal stations and airports….?!

    • Chris Oliver

      You mean contest rather than contend. What facts (no inverted commas) of climate change would you like contested?

      My reply is very largely from Tony Eggleton’s Short Introduction to Climate Change. If the enlightened editors, publishers of the columnists are too lazy or stupid to acquaint themselves with this stuff, they don’t deserve to have a profitable magazine to work for.

      I’m surprised The Spectator still believes it’s commercially sensible to sledge climate science but I take it for granted that the sensible people who run the show, and attention-seeking people like Delingpole with mortgages to pay and kids to school, don’t seriously think the science is fundamentally flawed.

      If the denialists had anything resembling a rock-solid case, or even a slightly concerning one, why would figures like Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Joanne Nova resort to blatant lying?

      Plimer: ‘Global warming and high CO2 content bring prosperity and lengthen your life.’ This is a curious statement for Plimer to make. Remember, he is denying that global warming exists (his Figure 1). CO2 levels have not been higher than about 280ppm for at least a million years, so how can he know they bring prosperity? How can he tell they lengthen your life?

      There are many criticisms of Plimer’s book available on the internet. One you might read was written by scientist Ian Enting from the University of Melbourne (http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91).

      One Plimer technique is to include a fallacy in his questions in such a way as to make them appear to be a fact. For example:

      13) Why is there no correlation between global warming and carbon dioxide yet there is a correlation between solar activity and temperature?

      In fact, there is a correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 going back as far as you like. The correlation is particularly close – or particularly well documented, anyway – during the past million years.

      24) If carbon dioxide drives global warming, how is it that we have had six major ice ages in the past, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher then than now?

      Atmospheric CO2 was never ‘far higher than now’ during the ice ages. You have to go back 24 million years to find a recorded CO2 level above 300ppm.

      30) Can you please show me how 3% of annual emissions of carbon dioxide, that is the human emissions, drive climate change and the other 97% do not?

      Human emissions only add about 0.7 per cent to the atmosphere’s CO2 content. All the CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to the establishment of the basic global temperature level, keeping the planet warmer than the ice-box it would otherwise be.

      48) Why could the Northwest Passage be navigated in the 1930s and 1940s in wooden boats, yet it could not be navigated in the late 20th century warming?

      49) In 1903 Amundsen passed through Canada’s Northwest Passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. If the planet is warming, why is this not possible now?

      50) I heard that 2010 was the hottest year since records have been kept. The Northwest Passage is closed by ice, yet it was open in the 1930s. Was 2010 really the hottest year on record?

      The first successful passage was by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen in 1903; it took him three years. In 1937, E.J. Gall from the Hudson Bay Company was able to transit one section of the Northwest Passage – from Cambridge Bay through Bellot Strait to Port Kennedy. Three years later, another experienced and determined Arctic sailor, the Norwegian-born Canadian Henry Larsen, achieved a complete crossing, but he had to overwinter halfway through the passage. In 1944 Larsen travelled the entire passage, the first explorer to do so in a single season. 1937-43 was the warmest period of the century to that point. Since the year 2000, cruise ships, yachts and other small vessels, and even an inflatable vessel, have managed the trip through the passage. In 2010, the Northwest Passage was certainly not closed by ice, because at least 18 vessels traversed it. In 2011, cruise companies were advertising tourist trips through the passage, so it clearly is still possible (in summer).

      • Chris Oliver

        Actually, I KNOW Delingpole is too thick to have read and appraised the extensive literature on global warming. He’s not an articulate provocative method actor, pretending to be ignorant of all the facts that knock his ideas into the dirt; he’s a genuine, verbally fluent, village idiot, who went to Malvern and has a brother who can be counted on to cover his back. Chris J Oliver on Facebook.

        • john s

          Well, insults fail to convince at the best of times, but childish name calling (dellingpoo) makes it impossible to take you seriously at all. Probably just as well, because you are obviously a mindless cheerleader.

          • Chris Oliver

            John S, you’re absolutely right. I shouldn’t have resorted to calling Delingpole Delingpoo and I apologise that I did. It won’t happen again. It would be a relief to me if he stopped resorting name-calling and jeering as well. It’s his impertinence that bothers me most. If he behaved more like a conservative and supported science in its battle against nonsense and deliberate falsification, I’d be very pleased and would be much more likely to buy The Spectator without feeling in some way tainted. I don’t think my jeer-leading (more than cheer-leading) is mindless at all. My posts are truly conservative in that they urge humility when appraising the work of people with relevant qualifications. My post urges people to attach proper weight to the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists – from across the political spectrum – say warming is a fact and the only issue is whether there are cost-effective things we can do to abate it. My posts have a few pertinent facts in them; Right-minded’s posts, and your post above, don’t.

          • dalai guevara

            “…a brother who can be counted on to cover his back.”

            That is so FAQing obvious it makes one’s hair hurt – it is so good to see this has become common knowledge.

            The bottom line is this: everyone’s given up on this guy anyway. No reads his piffle on Fox News II, with the exception of perhaps a few assorted pensioners with shares in the nuclear power industry. It’s really, really, reeeally sad to watch actually with a comical edge. How the ad companies who fund this crap could possibly believe the supposed page hits is beyond anyone with two brain cells.

          • Mnestheus

            As many as two?

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I dunno, I can laugh at Delingpoo.

      • Right-Minded

        Chris, straight away you miss the point of James’ article, James IS NOT attacking the scientists here (neither did I), exactly the opposite. The article clearly sympathizes with Professor Glover because her scientific opinion put her at odds with the green blob and was therefore unceremoniously dismissed by the EU. Please re-read the article, even the notorious environmentalist Mark Lynas can see this for what it is … green activists furious that a senior professor and advisor has dared dispute their ‘facts’. It was about GM crops this time, but other eminent scientists highlighting glaring inaccuracies and omissions with the broader climate debate have been silenced, don’t even get me started on the emails.

        The short essay you’ve written above is based on what you personally deem to be the relevant Science supporting your position; you cannot pick and choose what is relevant. Who the hell do you think you are speaking for “the scientists” as you put it, the scientific community is not in agreement on what the data is telling us, let alone what should be done about it – however much you wish it weren’t true.

        • Chris Oliver

          “Holding the ‘correct’ view on climate change is one thing, but you also have to swallow the official line on GM crops”

          The way I read that line is “You know how the loonies and climatology crooks insist on you believing their bullshit? Well now you have to swallow their bullshit on GM crops!”

          Delingpoo is supporting Professor Glover because in this instance he believes what she believes. The difference will be that her beliefs will be informed by scrupulous attention to peer-reviewed scientific literature and a careful weighing up of the evidence whereas Delingpoo might have read a chapter out of Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, then supplemented it in the way those prone to confirmation bias usually do by choosing to read and believe that Paul Collier writes in The Plundered Planet. Glover’s a scientist; Delingpoo’s a chancer who just happens to occasionally get some things right, but for the wrong reasons.

          Yes, indeed, some green activists can be really annoying. Some people adopt green causes not because they understand a damn thing about how economies and ecosystems work but because they think capitalism is nasty and ought to be replaced by something nicer.

          Delingpoo thinks capitalism is good, but he doesn’t understand how mixed economies work and doesn’t recognise that a lot of the things government workers do have a high value to the community and are more important generators of wealth than what legions of undoubtedly courageous and enterprising cafe and newsagency owners do. He ALSO doesn’t have a clue about how economies work. If he had a clue, he wouldn’t endlessly repeat the claim that carbon pricing will bring the economy to its knees.

          Name names here: what eminent scientists have highlighted the glaring inaccuracies and omissions with “the broader climate debate”? If they’ve been silenced, how do you know about them?

          You’re accusing me of reading the evidence selectively, or rather of quoting and paraphrasing someone who’s read the evidence selectively. Let’s pick one element of what I’ve put here and you can tell me what I’ve got wrong.

          “48) Why could the Northwest Passage be navigated in the 1930s and 1940s in wooden boats, yet it could not be navigated in the late 20th century warming?”

          How are you going to answer Plimer’s question?

      • Ed_Burroughs

        I won’t pretend to have read all of that, but this piece is in DEFENSE of a scientist.

    • goatmince

      … why are 8 unnamed trolls upticking this bottom licking post?

      • Right-Minded

        Classic comment from a representative of the loony-left, simply can’t fathom that people would dare to disagree with their damaging lies; & has to resort to insulting me and the 9 others who agree with me. Grow up.

        • goatmince

          You have been led to believe you made a top rated comment, buddy. I corrected that impression and dare to challenge it, make no mistake – you are a britbored troll, I can smell it from here without even checking, cartman …

          • Chris Oliver

            Thank you for the youtube link. Hampelmann was new to me. Very appropriate.

            Hampelmann m (genitive Hampelmanns or Hampelmannes, plural Hampelmänner)

            (toy) jumping-jack

            (hence) A person who is weak of will and easily influenced.

          • Right-Minded

            What on earth are you talking about? Surely you are the troll. I think you’re forgetting the Spectator used to be a magazine for those of a conservative disposition, and still is to a lesser extent. I’m here for my favourite journalists Delingpole, Liddle & Murray – what are you here for? Trolling.

            Go back to the Guardian or BBC you lunatic.

          • Mnestheus

            As one of a conservative disposition I am accordingly appalled to see the oldest extant Tory magazine fall into low Whig captivity.

            At all times, and in all polities, science politicized is science betrayed.

            http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-very-large-grain-of-salt.html

        • Chris Oliver

          I imagine you think loony left is a clever bit of alliteration but what makes you think goat mince is a loony leftist and what makes you think you’re NOT a member of the risible right?

          Climate science is no more a left/right proposition than algebra or inorganic chemistry. If you want to show that the lower atmosphere is warming up while the upper atmosphere is cooling, which is what our understanding of greenhouse mechanisms would lead us to anticipate, you send up thermometers then scrutinise the data ever so carefully to make sure you’ve accurately measured what you think you’ve measured.

          Ben Goldacre and many others have raised concerns about the extent to which peer-reviewed (and non-peer-reviewed scientific journals) won’t publish papers reporting indeterminate results and the extent to which journals want to report “breakthroughs” Goldacre and others have raised concerns about the extent to which drug companies with a hefty commercial interest in launching particular drugs, hide indeterminate or negative clinical trial data. But to believe climatologists as a professional group operate in the same way is beyond stupid.

          If climate scientists were as profoundly corrupt as you and Delingpoo believe, why have successive IPCC reports (which bring together what countless separate teams have published) been larded with statements about the (un)certainty of this or that proposition? Is it only to sound more credible that these charlatans, as you see them, claim “The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C. The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years” rather than that the increase has been quadruple that amount?

          Surely if they quadrupled the amount then buried the true data and hid behind their professional qualifications no one would find out? Maybe they could even persuade their fellow corrupted idiots at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, the American Medical Association, the American Physical Society, the US National Academy of Science to view the scientific papers that are in the public domain and, despite their transparent falsity, endorse the findings?

          If they quadrupled the measured increase, the evidence of anthropogenic global warming would be very significantly stronger. More policymakers would push for action. More voters would support them. There would be more jobs for climatologists and they would be better paid.

          Why do you doubt climate science Mr Right-Minded and Mr Delingpoo? Is it for the same reason you doubt we were told the truth about 9/11 and think those buildings collapsed as a result of a controlled explosion in an operation directed by the Bush White House via WTC 7? You don’t have to do the hard yards of studying for a relevant degree, reading the material, contributing some original findings of your own – you just have to read The Speccie to know all there is to know about climate science, eh?

          Back to the question I’ve put repeatedly: HOW is concern about global warming knackering the British economy? Is it that all that home insulation work is for nowt and that useful jobs aren’t being created? Is it that coal imports don’t result in money ebbing away from Britain’s national circular flow of goods and income? Is it that a vast proportion of Britain’s economy consists of emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries? Is it that adding a new carbon tax to the mix, whilst maybe simultaneously reducing the tax take from some other part of the mix, is robbing the underlings and the bourgeoisie of necessary incentives to work?

          For the record, I don’t think you and Delingpoo are right-wing on this issue, I think you are just mind-bogglingly stupid. I’m still waiting for that list of rationally contrarian climatologists who can’t get their work published.

          You might learn something from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

    • Chris Oliver

      A friend has found the sort of article YOU might link to to support your “se will keep crippling our economy” line: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9416805/MPs-have-no-idea-what-the-Climate-Change-Act-means.html

      “This quixotic quest is pursued in the name of saving the planet from global warming, though the UK’s contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions is only 1.6 per cent. China’s emissions increase every year by more than this amount,” writes Booker.

      There’s no evidence to support Booker’s declaration that it’s a quixotic (i.e. futile) quest to reduce per capita carbon emissions. Being 1.6 per cent of the problem when you’re 0.91 per cent of the world’s population IS an issue. China’s CO2 emissions are 3.2 tons per capita below Britain’s, and China has an awful lot more capitas and far bigger export markets.

      Oh, and where Booker says with great certainty that carbon reductions are a futile gesture, China and the US are pledged to prove him wrong:

      “The U.S. pledged that by 2025 the amount of CO2 it emits annually would drop to 26 to 28 percent below its emission levels from 2005 [i.e. would fall up to 5.4 tons from 19.3 tons per capita in 2005 to 13.9 tons per capita by 2025]. China meanwhile promised that its annual CO2 emissions [which, as we’ve seen, are well below ours on a per capita basis] … would stop rising by 2030 or earlier. China also pledged that 20 percent of its energy would come from sources other than fossil-fuels by 2030. That’s up from around 8 percent in 2010.”

  • JSC

    Psssttt…. The whole furore over GM crops stems almost entirely from a prolonged astro-turf campaign by unionised/socialist French farmers (backed by eco-mentalists) p*ssed of that they have to pay money to Monsanto for GM pest resistant seeds… Look it up… I kid you not.

    • Chris Oliver

      Almost entirely is an exaggeration. For instance, Rocquefort cheesemakers wanted to export their product to the US but couldn’t because of American health bans on unpasteurised milk products. They and others lobbied for restrictions against the importation of American beef under the pretext that American beef was full of dangerous hormones and antibiotics. America took the issue to the World Trade Organisation, which told France to put up the evidence of dangerous hormone and antibiotic levels or shut up. France failed to tender evidence so the restrictions on American beef had to go. Some of those lobbying for restrictions on international trade – Jose Bove, for instance – want globalisation and foreign markets entirely on their own terms. They’re nationalists, and nationalism is usually thought of as right-wing.

      http://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wsfh/0642292.0031.020?rgn=main;view=fulltext

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Bové

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      I don’t want farmers to have to pay Monsanto a fucking penny.

  • Mr Grumpy

    Impressive peroration, Mr D. I shall take it to heart and be sure to give this admirably independent-minded scientist’s views on scientific matters more weight than those of journalists with agendas. Naming no names.

  • Livy_Metamorphoses

    Don Forth,
    get back in your box.
    It’s obvious when the student is ready, the master will appear.
    http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/president/chief-scientific-adviser/index_en.htm
    This should mitigate any concerns you have — at the top of the page, in case you’re still questioning, she’s been “Archived” – 01/11/2014 !

  • RadioJockhadistan

    The treasonous GREEN LOBBY have silently delivered 30% energy autarky at near no extra cost.

    In the meantime the FOSSIL FUEL LOBBY managed to reduce cost at record pace in a desperate attempt to compete with the above.

    How are these matters related to climate change, YahMo D? (ohhh eyoooh!)

  • ADW

    Speaking of evidence, james, have you assessed some and therefore abandoned your adherence to the joke that is homeopathy?

    • Chris Oliver

      Hear hear, ADW.

    • goatmince

      A new YahMo D Minus remix has just been released, well not quite, it’s been around for a while.

      Have you come across it? It’s really good for a right old dance.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHR5Q89Z6mM

  • Mnestheus

    ‘ As a molecular biologist she could find no evidence to justify the EU’s opposition to GM: it was a ‘form of madness’ .

    As a physicist, I can find no evidence to justify Delingpole’s often daft and always politically predictable opposition to climate science , but I can’t say it’s form of madness, since he has sense enough to hunt, and hang out in Las Vegas.

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/07/moving-up-in-world.html

    • Ed_Burroughs

      I disagree. One can accept ‘the concensus’ (I do) and see the politicization of it by the Greens for what it is. I think Mr Delingpoo attacks the latter at least as much as the former.

  • steffanjohn

    ‘Typical! Greens pick and choose when to agree with science when it fits their agenda – i.e. combating climate change and opposing GMOs. Hypocrites!’… says person who supports GMOs and rejects climate change.

    Self-awareness isn’t your ‘thing’ is it?

  • Oldretirednurse

    It’s a good thing that wouldn’t happen here in the States. Oh, wait…

  • Mnestheus

    Has Mark Lynas ever organized a PR photo of a camel caravan ?
    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/06/viscount-pythons-flying-camel-circus.html

    With friends like Delingpole and Monckton, GMO’s have no need of enemies.

  • Mnestheus

    Why am I not surprised that there is something seriously wrong with Jame’s basic assumption. His equally libertarian opposite number at Reason magazine has no scientific problem endorsing GM crops along with the reality of radiative forcing from CO2.

    Why does he and the rest of the Lawson Blob? Could it be that they have been relying on interpreters of interpretations ?

    Nothing makes life easier for the Grauns and Greens than intellectually lazy tories.

Close