As EU-watchers will confirm, this is far from the only time that North has (shall we say) gone a little bit further than may have been sensible. See, for example: http://eurogoblin.eu/the-best-of-richard-north/

And don’t forget his role in propagating the bullshit about the lack of Lebanese casualties in the 2006 Israeli bombing campaign: http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol9/summer/articles/fauxtography.html

He used to be someone I could disagree with, yet still respect his knowledge and intellect – he’d often make me reconsider my own take (if only momentarily). But over the last few years he’s turned into a caricature of the paranoid conspiracy theorist (the EU is evil, global warming’s a lie, lefties are traitors, Obama’s some kind of communist, Israel can do no wrong, the Tea Party movement is a good thing, etc. etc. etc.)

Which is a great shame, because he used to have some genuinely interesting arguments about the nature of the EU beast – but he now just trots out such predictable neocon / libertarian nonsense you can predict his opinions about just about everything.

“Despite his pathetic attempt at covering up his tracks, the mask has fallen and laid bare. It exposes the real thinking behind his obsessive zeal to undermine the science behind climate change.”

I doubt racism is behind his thinking on climate change, it’s just a rather unpleasant personality characteristic.

“Climate change denying rubbish”? I’m pretty sure he isn’t arguing that the climate is static, and if he was then being a racist would be the least of his worries. You really shouldn’t use ‘climate change’ when you mean ‘global warming’, the two are very different.

The climate is changing, as it always does. If you want to argue that it is warming because of the actions of mankind, then use the proper terminology.

“Earlier this week, North went off on a wild rant.”

And in other news… bear… woods… pope… catholic.

The ‘jungle bunnies’ line is pretty rank. I’ve not heard that used – even ironically – for a couple of decades.

“Climate change deniers” should they all be “reeducated” then to the orthodox/BBC/soft left way of thinking, or perhaps put under house arrest/sent to Gulags, or maybe burned at the stake like the medievil heretics they really are ?

The connection between racism and a particualr position on climate change is like the connection between being a Nazi and listening to Wagner, i.e none at all

…don’t forget his role in propagating the bullshit about the lack of Lebanese casualties in the 2006 Israeli bombing campaign…

This. It was an absolutely shameful episode in the less-than-glittering history of blogs and all those who partook in it should have had their right to have their opinions taken seriously immediately and permanently revoked. North in particular deserves to be whipped through the streets for this, before we even get to the rest of his output.

Total lack of surprise. I’ve scratched the surface of many deniers and found a very nasty person lurking beneath. The contempt they express for science and scientists often extends much further and deeper. North evidently let the curtain slip momentarily.

—

Richard,

> I doubt racism is behind his thinking on climate change, it’s just a rather unpleasant personality characteristic.

It’s not hard to see how they compliment each other. If you view the ‘others’ as “jungle bunnies” then you evidently view them as inferior and therefore not deserving of consideration or sympathy.

The deniers know that the poorest people – the “jungle bunnies” – will be hardest hit by ACC so dehumanising them is one effective tactic to neutralise any guilt or remorse you might otherwise be troubled by.

@ 7 “The deniers know that the poorest people – the “jungle bunnies” – will be hardest hit by ACC so dehumanising them is one effective tactic to neutralise any guilt or remorse you might otherwise be troubled by.”

So you know for certain what and where the impact of climate change will be ? You must be very bright indeed then because even the most warmist climate scientists will admit (when pressed, which they aren’t very often) that they cannot predict what/where/when the outcomes will be.

Matt Munro:

> So you know for certain what and where the impact of climate change will be ?

Not exactly – but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that those who are already struggling to feed themselves are going to be the least able to survive droughts, floods, rising sea levels and the other impacts brought by unmitigated ACC.

In the unlikely event that you want to stop spouting your nonsense denier rhetoric – “warmist climate scientists” – long enough to educate yourself a little, here are some starters of what is already happening and what is to come:

– Climate change, people and poverty, July 2009 – http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/bp130_suffering_science.pdf

– Drought may threaten much of globe within decades. The US and many other heavily populated countries face a growing threat of severe and prolonged drought in coming decades, possibly reaching a scale in some regions by the end of the century that has rarely, if ever, been observed in modern times. https://www2.ucar.edu/news/climate-change-drought-may-threaten-much-globe-within-decades

P.S. I meant to include this one:

“Loss of healthy life years as a result of global environmental change (including climate change) is predicted to be 500 times greater in poor African populations than in European populations,” states the UCL Lancet Commission report bluntly. http://antemedius.com/content/climate-change-effects-hugely-unequal-globally

North sounds just the man to take over at a certain popular TV show about cars and Motorheads – should it’s current host – cannot recall the name – (is it Motormouth?)ever go on a one way trip, head first through the windscreen.

@ 9 Yada yada yada, probably this, possibly that, if trends continue blah blah blah, it just sounds like so much liberal guilt to me.
The actual science, as opposed to the politics, says that the biggest temperature changes are forecast to be around the poles, not the equator.
And why are rising sea levels necessaily a bad thing ? the sea brings life, food, transport, a lot of people would be better off if they were nearer the sea.

Matt Munro: either a troll or a moron. The effect is the same.

Matt Munro should practice what he preaches and set up camp this winter on the Goodwin Sands perhaps – he thinks being nearer the sea is no bad thing ;’ Life’ – (temporarily) ‘Food’ (if you can catch it) and ‘Transport’ – (if you can walk on water), High Tide – and extinction if you can’t! Cor Blimey!

He should get together with Rendell of the Indie. He is obviously another of those plain speakers whose plain spoken bigotry warms the cockles of whatever heart Rendell (fundamentalist admirer of Bliar) has. His plainly spoken contempt for anything that might help anyone not white, rich and powerful while threatening the means by which these people remain rich and powerful makes him a prime contender for leader of Lord Young’s “Never Had It So Good” party.

13/14 You are obviously unaware that there is significant evidence in evolutionary science that living near the sea, and the consequent effect on diet was the stimulus to human brain development that separates up from apes.
Still much better for us to just live near big state and let them tell us what to do – always worked in the past hasn’t it – pair of brainwashed arseholes.

Matt Munro,

There is no scientific consensus on what, precisely, drove the evolution of human intelligence. Furthermore the idea that the human brain could only have evolved with exposure to a seafood diet is discredited (Carlson & Kingston 2007, AJHB 19(4):585-588). In general, the evidence points against a coastal origin of modern humans, leaning towards evolution in a more forested environment.

(On a general point to everyone else, isn’t it funny how those who go on most about “brainwashing” are normally the ones whose brains appear most to need a damn good wash?)

17 Andy

So true. Perhaps there’s a gap in the market…on the lines of a car wash but for washing the brains of numbskull global warming deniers, racists etc?

I’m sure there ought to be a government grant for such new business ideas…

Matt Munro – thanks for the foul-mouthed diatribe – I will take it in the spirit from whence it came. Brainwashing? Did such a thing ever actually exist, or is this another example of right-wing mythology being best served by do-it-yourself pseudo-psychology? Don’t ask me. What is your calm and rational opinion on this one Matt? I suppose we’ve got to believe something – however Ostrich-like we might be thought! Ha! – Ostriches and sand – that’s another myth isn’t it? On second thoughts -perhaps we shouldn’t believe anything at all – that way we will never be challenged, or get health-endangeringly angry and abusive over what is right and what, in our important and informed opinion, is not right. Keep smiling Matt – Happy days are here again – Apres nous le deluge! There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repents etc – it’s never too late – until it’s too late.

A bit rich, Sunny, from someone who alters most of the headlines on here when it is pointed out they bear no relation to substance of the article.

Let’s be honest.

This is just a rather desperate attempt to stir the tea fast enough so it goes over the side of the cup………

I’m sure that those who will find themselves suddenly living near the sea might certainly find it beneficial. Those who suddenly find themselves living in the sea might not enjoy it so much.

You are obviously unaware that there is significant evidence in evolutionary science that living near the sea, and the consequent effect on diet was the stimulus to human brain development that separates up from apes.

‘ckin hell Munro. Even for someone as unfailingly thick as you, this is breaking new records for bad argumentation.

You are aware, I assume, that the early stages of human evolution all took place actually under water? Would you be willing to accept this as an argument for moving house to the Pacific floor? (Certainly I wouldn’t want to discourage you from giving it a try.)

And even if your hilariously awful argument was actually true, it still wouldn’t be of any help whatsoever in the short or medium term. As your neighbourhood disappears under the sea, are you likely to be cheered up by the prospect of evolutionary benefits, thousands of years down the line?

Larry,

It’s apparent that as the evidence for disruptive climate change gets stronger, the ‘mental gymnastics’ performed by those in denial becomes more elaborate and ludicrous. It’s morbidly fascinating to watch….

@ 12

“And why are rising sea levels necessaily a bad thing ? the sea brings life, food, transport, a lot of people would be better off if they were nearer the sea”

Very true. Why, imagine being able to swim around your own house! You’d never need a bath! I shall buy properties in Norfolk at once.

‘ ere hang on a minute Chaise Guevara @24, some of us yokels live in Norfolk already – we are well known for our small minded xenophobia too – we don’t intend to share our anticipated underwater-life facilities with any Johnny-come-lately property speculators. We’ve enough sharks of our own – (just go down Regent’s Road at Gt Yarmouth in summertime if you don’t believe me) What we have we hold; – we shall fight them on the beaches, along the mud-banks of Breydon Water, on the Scroby Sands and in the fished-out holes of the North Sea – we shall never surrender – unless the price is right – what’s your opening offer Chaise?.