• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

When did you first become skeptical about the idea of manmade global warming?

There was no Saul-line moment of conversion; it was a gradual dawning. One thing that the global-warming lobby likes to do is to make out that people who disagree with them somehow hate nature and that the reason they object to global warming is not on scientific grounds but because they aren’t prepared to make the necessary lifestyle changes. This is nonsense. In a way, I think my love of nature is the reason I care so much about this battle. For example, the measures adopted by the British government to deal with so-called manmade global warming involve carpeting the most beautiful countryside on Earth with wind farms that are inefficient, can only operate economically if heavily subsidized by the government and therefore the taxpayer, and utterly destroy the landscape. I don’t believe in this thing they call the precautionary principle because sometimes doing something can be much, much, much worse than doing nothing.

Historians are aware that Greenland used to be farmed and that the Romans grew grapes in England. Are the global-warming scientists historical illiterates, or were they just hoping that no one would remember that the world was quite a bit warmer a few centuries ago.

It’s a very interesting question. The first part of the answer is that scientists stick to their particular field. I think what’s happened with some of these climate-change scientists is that they’ve been so engrossed in their little corner of the picture that they haven’t bothered to look at the bigger one. And the second part is that in some cases they have actively sought to rewrite history, as in those Climategate e-mails where you see Michael Mann mulling aloud how he might get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. That’s the kindest complexion one can put upon it. The Medieval Warm Period is an embarrassment to them. The fact is that the majority of scientists in that field agree that during the Medieval Warm Period it was warmer than it is now. There was no industrial civilization then, so how do you explain it? You can see why it’s a huge embarrassment to them. The same applies to the Roman history, when they were growing grapes by Hadrian’s Wall.

I think it’s natural to be skeptical of global warming when you hail from Minnesota, which was once covered by ice. And of course, around this time of year, global warming sounds pretty good.

There is a very interesting report that was sent to me recently written by one of the numerous lobbying foundations that advises the propagandists of how best to advance the cause of global warming in the minds of the various people around the world. And it said precisely this: In warmer countries it clearly makes sense to talk in terms of global warming. But in other places, where the weather was unlikely to behave in the correct manner, they should call it climate change and be sure to claim that any form of extreme weather event, be it cold or hot, was definitely further proof of this “climate change.” The dishonesty of what is being foisted upon us is extraordinary.

Read the truth about climate change in “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed”

Why did it take so long for the global-warming proponents to realize that Climategate was a serious blow to their efforts?

Denial. Denial is the obvious answer. Even now, you’re getting a lot of warmists, particularly the environment correspondents in the mainstream newspapers and at the BBC, they’re kind of finessing their position. They’re preparing their lines of defense. A lot of them are saying things about the recent IPCC revelations like “this of course is much more important than the totally insignificant Climategate e-mails.” This is a) an attempt to justify how they were sniffy and didn’t report the Climategate e-mails when they happened, and, b) a demonstration of how they want to give their opponents as little ammunition as they can. They want to credit their opponents with as little intelligence or journalistic skill as possible. For me, the significance about the Climategate e-mails was not due to any new and specific revelations, but that for the first time, we had e-mails confirming what a handful of journalists and dissenting scientists had been saying for over a decade – that the global-warming scientists had been cooking the books and fiddling the data, that they had been suppressing the research of scientists who disagreed with them. All of these things that people had suspected before but never been able to prove were suddenly there. The Climategate e-mails were the smoking gun.

Do you think we’ve seen the last of the scandalous revelations to come out of the IPCC and the CRU?

No, it’s the gift that goes on giving. First of all, we had Glaciergate, then we had Amazongate, and of course before that we had Pachaurigate. Yesterday we had Hollandgate, where it was discovered that the IPCC report had exaggerated the extent to which lowland Holland is at threat from global warming and exaggerated, by a significant factor, the number of people there who were endangered by flooding being caused by global warming.

When I consider how wildly off these reports have been, I’m beginning to worry that the real danger is being overrun by hordes of ravenous polar bears.

I would think this is almost certainly the case. We’re actually in more danger of being frozen as well.

Copenhagen fell out of the news rather rapidly. Was that the result of Climategate or the economic situation?

I think Climategate had very, very, very little to do with the failure of Copenhagen. It was in the midst of a recession.

I have one final question. Why are Guardian readers such wankers?

They are, aren’t they! Having said that, one of my great pleasures in life, one of the few pleasures left for those of us who don’t believe in one-world government, is rooting through the comments below articles written by people like George Monbiot and seeing just how many of them have been censored by the moderators and how many more are antipathetic to George Monbiot’s point of view. What you realize is that certainly out in the blogosphere and on the Internet generally, skepticism is growing. This is a battle worth fighting. The future of Western civilization depends on the outcome. I think it’s that serious.

This is an abridged version of the interview with Mr. Delingpole. The text of the full interview is available at Vox Popoli.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.