Biased BBC contributor Hippiepooter sent me this most excellent link to a Delingpole article on his encounter with Richard Bacon.

“Bacon, remember, has recently been fighting a public battle against the various internet trolls(especially on Twitter) who have made his life hell. Had he bothered to read Watermelons and got as far as chapter ten – They Don’t Like It Up ‘Em – he would have seen catalogued in some detail the cases of vile bullying experienced by climate sceptics like myself, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy deliberately orchestrated by green activists, and stoked up by BBC presenters like Richard Bacon (and Sir Paul Nurse) when they use inflammatory words like “denier”. (What, so questioning the validity of AGW theory is roughly equivalent to denying that six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust? Nope. I don’t think so).”

Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to FRAZZLED BACON

  1. Jim Dandy says:

    You’re about a week late on Delingpole’s bizarre article. He’s still smarting from the manshaming doled out to him by Paul Nurse I think!

    Nb doesn’t Guido use the term ‘deficit denier’? The equivalence point is a good one, but it doesn’t just apply to overheated Greens.


    • doggywoggy says:

      Who is talking about deficit denial? Nurse has used the term climate change denier, but has changed his own tune lately as the science is changing (as it always does when new evidence undermines a current thesis). He now refers to deniers as being a very small number of people who deny all change in climate. He is correct. He also recognises that the majority of the scientific papers show evidence of a very small level of anthropogenic warming and little cause for alarm. He also acknowledges there are others on the other extreme who claim, with little supporting evidence, that the world is on the edge of a catastrophic cataclysm.

      Claiming that the scientific realists, who point to empirical evidence of very moderate warming, as deniers is a sign of real denial of reality.

      The alarmists are in denial about the earth’s previous warming periods of the last 2000 years, despite an increasing number of independently peer reviewed papers citing many different sources clear evidence showing very strong evidence of globally warmer periods in the past two thousand years. These scientific papers are in addition to thousands of other academic papers spanning anthropology, politics, history, oceanography, biology, botany, and many more areas of study which all show that the earth was warmer than today during the medieval warm period and Roman warm period.

      The “hockey team” are in total denial based upon a few trees and some very very dodgy splicing of poor proxy data from a few trees, and modern thermometer data.

      The reason is simple. They needed to convince the world’s politicians that the current warming was “unprecedented”. They had to hide the MWP and created the hockey stick chart to do just that. It was utterly terrible science, but great propaganda.

      Those who believe the hockey stick is in any way true, are the real deniers, for they deny reality.


      • Alexander says:

        Don’t suppose you’d know where I could find any of those papers, or where Nurse changed his view do you? Was having debate with friend on FBook & he was saying there are none, I couldn’t find any via Google…


    • Guest Who says:

      Jim Dandy says:
      April 2, 2012 at 8:32 am
      You’re about a week late

      Blimey no chance of that with you. Waiting for the next post to swoop and… leading with a critique based on… timeliness?

      I know you don’t ‘do’ answers when it doesn’t suit, or claim to be unable to understand, but care to fire up that FoI-protected intranet search you have at the office and offer insights on how the £4Bpa news monopoly we are compelled to pay for is often a smidge behind the curve, if not downright mute until dragged, kicking and screaming, to confront an issue they don’t fancy addressing as it challenges their fondly rigged narrative.


      • Jim Dandy says:

        “…claim to be unable to understand”

        I must say it is a little difficult to understand you sometimes. This post, I can see is broadly critical, but I’m finding it difficult to pinpoint exactly what the thurst of your argument is.


  2. hippiepooter says:

    JD, did you hear his interview with Bacon?


  3. Mailman says:

    Of course he hasn’t heard it because to do that would be to confront his own ignorance.



    • Jim Dandy says:

      I listened to it subsequently. Bacon is a lightweight and should have stayed in children’s tv. But I’m not sure why it inspired Delingpole to pen such a bizarre article, outlining his rape fantasies (Deliverance! An extension of the pig analogy presumably). I’m all for bating lazy thinking on climate change, but Delingpole is a fruitbat.


      • Fruitbat maybe, but that makes no difference to the fact that he had Bacon bang to rights. Bacon was singing from the hymn sheet of the Great Green Religion – yet had made no effort whatsoever to investigate what he claims to believe in. Hence, more than worthy of being chopped up on air and in print. The other point you seem to miss is that it is a once a year at the very most happening that a climate dissident gets a hearing. As for Paul Nurse, one of the three people responsible for the corruption of one of our finest institutions, the Royal Society, might I suggest you read Montford’s paper on the RS over at the GWPF web site.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Well JD, just who is the fruitbat here for taking Delingpole’s ‘Deliverance’ analogy seriously? Is it through antipathy that you choose not to recognise his humourous hyperbole or are you really that obtuse?

        Bacon is quite sharp in my view, but he puts it to bad use, as one can expect from a Brownite, the only moral monstrosity that I’m aware of to have resided @ No10.

        I wouldn’t score DPoe’s card as highly as he does, but I do think he landed some point scoring blows on this rather unpleasant character.


        • uncle bup says:

          Bacon quite sharp, you say?

          Interviewing a former senior naval bod today the fsnb mentioned that we had a nuclear sub in the Falklands..

          Boom: But what could we use a nuclear submarine for?

          FSNB: To sink ships.

          I’ve mailed Bacon the We Dive At Dawn dvd I got free with the Daily Mail.

          ‘Take her down.
          Periscope depth.’


      • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

        Should have stayed in children’s tv huh?……..why didi he quit then?….answesr on a postcard to charlie.


  4. Jim Dandy says:

    Of all the analogies he could have used, it did jar rather that he chose a male rape scene! But perhaps he was just joking. And the pig link works I suppose. Rather bizarre hubris though don’t you think? Not someone to be taken seriously.

    Bishop Hill though Jeremy is a serious commentator and I think he has a point about the Royal Society.


    • John Anderson says:

      Bishop Hill “has a point” about the Royal Society.

      Sorry Mr Dandy – that seems a very patronising remark. Who on earth giuves you the right to make such de haut en bas comments ?

      Hill has not just made a point about the aberrant policies at the Royal Society, he has written up a full analysis of it.

      Compared to Andrew Montford’s thorough investigations of the sleazy politics surrounding climate issues, you are surely a featherweight.


  5. Louis Robinson says:

    The issue is this:
    Should an interviewer be one of the protagonists? No
    Does ANY interviewer know as much about a subject an ANY of the advocates for either position? No

    If the producer of the show (or Bacon) wished this to be an informed attack on global warming “deniers”, if they had wanted someone to “take on” Delingbole, they should have enlisted someone from the other side of the argument in a debate – not exposed the shallow learning of a celebrity. Bacon, as a mere radio host, is ONLY a facilitator, a conjunction, a referee. He should never go up against an expert and become part of the argument. The fact that he does shows once again the arrogance of the chattering classes. Presenters read briefs which are pages long; experts spend all day every day immersed in their subjects. No contest. The problem with this “interview” was that Delingbole was shooting fish in a barrel – and exposing the private views of an employee of the BBC (a supposedly neutral organisation). Bad decisions all round. And PS Bacon is a jerk.


    • Notasheep says:

      As I commented at the time of this interview, when have you ever before heard Richard Bacon take such an antagonistic position during an inteview? certainly not with the selection of left-wing comedians and commentators that usually pass through his studio.


  6. johnnythefish says:

    The trouble is you will never hear a ‘sceptic’ from the scientific world on the BBC, especially in debate with a warmist, because a) the BBC like to maintain the myth that ALL climate scientists back the man-made warming theory and b) they would rip the theory to shreds. But then, we sceptics know AGW is just an enabling vehicle – and a pretty ingenious one at that – for the Marxist agenda, from anti-capitalism to wealth redistribution. You’ve got to hand it to the Lefties, though – they’re making a pretty good job of it so far (aided and abetted by the BBC, of course).


  7. doggywoggy says:

    Delingpole is an arrogant arse, but he is correct in general terms in his understanding of the climate change debate.

    I would have loved to hear Bacon up against the gravitas and erudite abilities of Viscount Monckton. Monckton has actually been accorded the privilege of debating directly with some alarmist scientists and has never been beaten in a debate with one. Even when debating in the heart of a hostile university against environmental professors. I have seen many videos of his debates with his critics and inevitably, every time, the alarmist scientist/journalist/activist is shown to be ignorant of much of the state of climate science, ignorance which causes them to make many incorrect assumptions which lead them into error.

    I have enjoyed witnessing Viscount Monckton making several alarmists look decidedly foolish as he both debunks the lies which the alarmists spread about him, (He is a Lord, he is entitled to call himself a member of the house of Lords and has the letters to prove it, and he does NOT deny climate change, nor does he deny a small amount of anthropogenic climate change, therefore he is NOT a denier) and then debunks the “climate science” which falsely predicts accelerated and catastrophic warming caused solely by man’s contribution of CO2.

    Bacon would never dare take on the likes of Monckton.


    • LondonCalling says:

      Doggywog, correction: Delingpole is not an arse, but you most certainly are sir for name-calling. Delingpole takes up the fight in public while you hide behind a keyboard calling people names. No sir. if you want to see an arse look in your mirror.


      • demon1001 says:

        Whether Delingpole is an arse or not is a matter of opinion. The rest of Doggywog’s post was very good so I don’t understand why he is being attacked so strongly just for having an opinion about Delingpole.


      • geyza says:

        London Calling, I have had several online discussions with Delingpole, most of which were civil, but in a couple, when he did not understand a simple point, he went off on an abusive tangent, in spite of my agreeing with his general points and explaining in simple terms those things he could not grasp.

        He behaved like a total arse. Now I generally agree with Delingpole on a great number of issues, however that does not change my opinion of my direct experience of him behaving like a total arse. That is to separate and create a distinctions between his personality and his beliefs and arguments. He behaves like a total arse at times, which is a shame, because he would be so much more effective IF he could stop being an arrogant arse!


        • Guest Who says:

          R’s vs. elbows.

          Fair enough; personal experience has to be respected, if often hard to verify.

          Mr. Delingpole does not, from the few times I’ve seen him, come across as the first person one would want across a pint at the pub, but on the whole his writings seem well researched, often funny and to the point. But unlike a Clarkson he can for me stray into ad hom territory too often and without mitigating wit (I exclude the ‘out and shot’ idiocy/set-up from that), which as you say undermines much more effective factual filleting.

          It seems a common trait with some in this line. I had a run in with Guido on twitter, because he didn’t bother to read what I had written and went off on a foul-mouthed tirade because he thought I was disagreeing with him. I do, a lot, but not then, and have not forgiven him since. I follow as he is a valuable tool and necessary evil in exposing hypocrisy and attempted cover-ups, but will never RT him directly any more.


  8. Jim Dandy says:

    No, Delingpole is an arse. And I agree Monckton is a more formidable advocate. Larson too.


  9. Richard Pinder says:

    Delingpole is a very good investigative journalist which has become unusual nowadays. In a complaint to the BBC they said that they do not have any scientific investigative journalists any more.

    Monckton always wins debates because he knows the difference between facts and assumptions unlike his opponents.

    So correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the President of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, thinks that the consensus of opinion, is that people who deny that the government can stop the climate from changing are not part of the consensus because they deny that the climate can change, and to deny that the Climate can Change is equivalent to denying that the National Socialists killed the Jews.

    No chance of me getting him to debate Atmospheric Physics for the Mensa Magazine then. The scientific debate is over, by order of the Royal Society. Arrest the Jewish Professor Richard Lindzen for denial of his faith, by order of the President of the Royal Society.

    Does any one really deny that the climate changes, or is this proof that the President of the Royal Society is a disgrace because he is not very intelligent.


  10. DP111 says:

    “Climate change” scammers (aka AGW scammers), like all good conmen, like to stay one jump ahead of being unmasked. They are now speaking not in terms of Climate change as a whole, but “Variability in Climate change”.