Blogs

Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com

13 February 2014

3:46 PM

13 February 2014

3:46 PM

Green-baiter James Delingpole has quit his blog at Telegraph with customary flair:

‘Today is the sad day when I must bid you all farewell. I have been appointed Chief Sustainability Consultant at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, working directly to one of my all-time-heroes Ed Davey, with a juicy, taxpayer-funded salary, a ring-fenced pension and a bio-fuel-powered Aston-Martin just like the Prince of Wales’s. No, not really, about the second bit. Just the first bit: I’m off to pastures new.’

Mr Steerpike hears that the pastures new are the launch of a London office of right-wing muck-racking website Breitbart. Set up by the late, but always missed, troublemaker Andrew Breitbart, the American conservative website is set to launch over here imminently.

It’s a high traffic hire. Along with Buzzfeed UK, it seems our American cousins have accepted that London really is the capital of the world.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Yorkieeye

    Got you book marked sweetie xx

  • FuglydeQuietzapple

    If only this heralded the return of the DT blogs to the Conservatives, and a few others, who looked for facts and arguments and did not look for a fuhrer.

  • rtj1211

    School fees inflation requires father to seek higher paid employment……..

  • Mac Richards

    Good riddance. Delingpole is a hack.

  • Jonathan Dutton

    Loved “Thinly veiled autobiography” but still waiting for your literary master work. Journalism pays the bills but does little for immortality!

  • Tom Smith

    Best of luck to you!

  • roma1950

    well suited to that nasty organization.full of 100% nutters.and applauded by Fox News.enough said.

  • NHConservative777

    Nothing worse than as self-righteous, pompous, liberal, redcoat who can’t spell!

  • jazatw

    I love the fact that a man who is an former media and former arts correspondent for the Telegraph purports to be a scientific expert. This is a man whose last science qualification was an O level; a man who admits he doesn’t read peer-reviewed journals. Still he is good at rabble rousing and that’ll do instead.

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      He isn’t a scientific expert; he’s a contemporary politics and post-normal-science-debunking expert. The wild claims by the thermoleftists about climate were always driven by political goals and a political agenda. Read his book Watermelons for the nitty gritty.

      • jazatw

        “He isn’t a scientific expert.” That at least is something we can all agree on.

    • Ummer Farooq @faro0485

      Next you’ll be telling me that unless I have a massive science CV, I cannot point out that the Green argument is just Soylent Green.

      • jazatw

        No, you can point out what you like, and of course an appeal to authority is a fallacious argument. Delingpole’s “talents” do not lie in the scientific field.

        I had a look at Delingpole’s new billet. Oh my. It appears to be for people who find the Daily Mail too nuanced.

  • Skeptik

    Hi Friends,

    Glad I know what is happening to JD

  • Ipsmick

    Never heard of James Delingpole – who is he?

    • AlecM

      I’m sure he’s never heard of you either…..

  • michaelgingerly

    Reading through some of these Lefty snide remarks, I’m reminded of liberal totalitarianism.

  • michaelgingerly

    Well, this is exciting news! Welcome to Brietbart, James. You are joining an indispensable media outlet that strips the lizard liberals bare and shivering in their frigid cesspool.

  • Leslie Graham

    So even The Telegraph has now realised that he’s an idiot and a liability.
    James ‘I’ve never read a science paper’ Delingpole finaly gets the boot.
    That he is reduced to ‘writing’ his utter pigswill for Breitbart is poetic justice for this fool of a man.
    Good riddance – maybe The Telegraph will purge a few more morons and return to being a serious newspaper.

  • amphibious

    Such a muck raking sinecure seems perfect for Dungpole – good riddance

  • callingallcomets

    Breitbart.com is the only “conservative” US website worth reading…by that I mean sites outside the Beltway “official” websites that always viewed the Tea Party movement as a bunch of unwashed flyover country rubes who wouldn’t just sit down and shut up. Breitbart himself always made the point that unless conservatives accepted and understood popular culture they would never have a chance of actually gaining power. The collapse of the Democrats in 2010 – and the contribution of Sarah Palin and the TP in that earthquake vindicated his view. Let us hope that Breitbart UK will equally shake up the “official” Tory media (DT, Speccie) here..

    • Daniel Maris

      Message 2U: Brits are really, really turned off by Americans trying to influence their politics. So anything called “Breitbart UK” has about as much chance of succeeding as “Himmler UK”.

      • callingallcomets

        I think you had a typo there…you meant to say “I am” instead of “Brits are” and “our” in place of “their”. We more broad minded folk tend not to see ourselves as the spokesman of the British People..

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          Nope, dude – it is obvious that as the signs are ever more apparent that Britain will be fully welcomed (in stages) into the busom of European multi-cult, there is perhaps now a market for a hardcore tea party-style contingent in the UK. This will only ever be a niche market. Further to the catastrophic failure of the Anglo-American business model, the inevitable decline of Anglo-American outlook cannot be halted.

          “Breitbart UK” would be a wonderful joke to welcome here – shot to bits like the Delingpole blog on the DT in no time if not heavily one-sidedly moderated in a true totalitarian fashion. Good luck with that.

          • callingallcomets

            I think you must have frightened a cuttlefish – an inky discharge appears to have obscured your reasoning

  • Chris Kimberley

    maybe dellingpole is just running away because his ignorant stance on climate change has been exposed as dangerous rather than just stupid in light of this winters extreme storms

    • AlecM

      Dimwit – this is weather as it used to be when I was a kid.

      • Daniel Maris

        OK, AlecM if you are an honest man you will give us the years when you were a “kid” (let’s say age 5-10) and we can compare them with the last five years. It’s called “being objective”.

        • AlecM

          In 1956 at the age of just 10, I moved to an Army camp in Pembrokeshire. It was perched on top of 200ft high cliffs. All the telegraph poles had been blown down and many trees,m also married quarters roofs, not ours.

          The camp anemometer had blown off its bearings at an indicated 137 mph.

          Satisfied?

          • HY

            You will never satisfy Dismal Dan or any other member of the First Church Of Settled Science. Dan is a true believer in. Dan is a great enthusiast of “renewable energy” and has for many years been making large deposits of biomass on the Speccie blogs. According to Dan, by now the world should be in receipt of limitless energy courtesy of the Rossi Cold Fusion Generator. By the way, how’s that going, Dan? (It runs on magic beans dontcha know!)

            • Daniel Maris

              Borlurks. I am an agnostic on AGW.

          • Daniel Maris

            That’s one incident. I’ll see if I can compare 1952-1956 to 2010-2014.

        • HookesLaw

          As I say above – the 1947 flood line at our Thames lock is 5 feet above current levels. The 1878(ish) level is some 3 feet higher.
          In 1606 some 2000 people were drowned in the flooding of the Somerset Levels. There is a long history of huge storms battering Britain.

    • Scyptical Chymist

      On the contrary, the severity of this weather has been exacerbated by the wrong headed policy of favouring wildlife over humanity by sabotaging defenses against flooding of various coastal areas and lack of river management. This is done by the same “green” lobby now involved in climate change hysteria who have been responsible in past years for other anti -human over the top reactions. The worst of these was the outright ban on DDT just when the struggle against the malarial mosquito was being won. Intead of rational control an outright ban was pushed through meaning millions (perhaps billions) have died needlessly. Of course this may well have suited those environmentalists who see humanity as a needless drag on “the planet”. Their wrong headed zealotry has had appalling economic as well as humanitarian effects in the area of energy in particular. It is time for a wake-up call.

      • Daniel Maris

        Pathetic.

    • HookesLaw

      You are the ignorant one. There has been no global warming in 17 years and therefore – since CO2 concentrations have continued to rise – no proof that man is influencing the climate. Extreme storms and weather happen will happen and have happened in the past. The 1947 flood level at our Thames lock is still five feet above current levels.
      Current weather has nothing to to with warming or climatre change or whatever you want to call it.
      What is clear is that lefty morons like you want to use the scare and scam of AGM to peddle your lefty socialist marxist mantras.

  • AlecM

    Just to show how unprincipled are those who push the IPCC’s fake fizzicks, we now have the Met Office’s Slingo apparently blaming the Volcanic eruption in Indonesia for the present northern hemisphere cooling.

    The fact is, this volcano’s ‘Explosivity Index’ is suspected to be <= 4**. Pinatubo (1991) and Krakatoa (1883) were 6 on this logarithmic scale. That means the new eruption they're blaming has <1% of the effect on the atmosphere of Pinatubo.

    The last refuge of inadequate scientists is grossly to exaggerate data for imaginary proof of an hypothesis.

    **http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/14/a-climate-changer-indonesian-volcano-erupts-huge-plume-of-ash-17-km-into-the-air/

    • Scyptical Chymist

      Well said. If the data don’t fit, then bend it — and then run a computer simulation which you use as reality.

    • HookesLaw

      The recent bowdlerisation of science is a disgrace.

  • RichardOakes

    The clip on this page tells you all you need know about Delingpole.

    A complete and utter cretin.

    http://flay.jellybee.co.uk/2011/01/james-delingpole-and-science-of.html

    • AlecM

      I think you’ll find that the great majority of the simple minded accept blindly the IPCC’s fake fizzicks as Gospel.

      This is because it was constructed to confuse the gullible, including you, so it seems.

      JD is too bright to be taken in so easily.

      • RichardOakes

        Jesus Christ.

        Delingpole apparently doesn’t even know what ‘peer review’ is, so I hardly think he’s an authority on the science behind things. He has his prejudices, and if the facts can’t be ‘interpreted’ to fit them, he simply ignores them. If you want to listen to an ‘interpreter of interpretations’ over ‘the factual findings of the entire scientific community’ then that’s up to you, but I hardly think you should be throwing the word ‘gullible’ around if that’s your choice.

        Watch that video – you’ll be deleting your ‘too bright’ comment in no time.

        • AlecM

          Come off it. All you have to do with IPCC Climate Alchemy is to sniff it.

          1, 17 years 5 months of no warming and 8% increase (relative) in pCO2.

          2. 95%+ of the 90 odd climate models have failed to predict this.

          3. Any professional scientist or engineer immediately says ‘How could they be so stupid’ when they see the claim that the Earth’s surface emits a net IR energy flux at the same level as an isolated black body in the vacuum of Space.

          4. The Tyndall Experiment has been badly misunderstood. There can be no ‘thermalisation’ of GHG-absorbed IR energy in the gas phase when it is at thermodynamic equilibrium – the heating is solely at heterogeneous interfaces with condensed matter. [The proof is in the operation of the CO2 laser.]

          5. There is no ‘back radiation’.

          6. You can’t apply Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA because the atmosphere is IR semi-transparent.

          7. The real GHE is ~11K: Hansen got it badly wrong by making the incorrect assumption that there is a -18 deg. C zone in the upper atmosphere in radiative equilibrium with Space. There isn’t such a zone.

          8. To offset the exaggerated warming in the models which gives the imaginary ‘positive feedback’, they covertly use ~25% increase in low level cloud albedo.

          There are many other errors. This pseudo-science is embarrassingly bad.

          • Daniel Maris

            So the majority of climatologists are wrong and you’re right? That’s what we are supposed to believe?

            • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

              1. What’s a ‘climatologist’? An expert in climastrology and climate séance? Climate is influenced by loads of factors and therefore multiple disciplines are involved in understanding it.

              2. What’s bad about slight, almost unnoticeable changes in climate? Climate has always changed, even when man wore fur for capes and diapers.

              3. Most life on Earth likes things warmer rather than colder.

              4.
              Post by Gilgamesh on James’s blog (referring to the infamous Doran Survey which is the basis of most claims about ‘the vast majority of scientists’):
              ————-

              97% of 77 scientists.

              Wow, impressive, quick let’s destroy the world economy on that basis.

              “The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

              First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.

              Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about.

              They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

              Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

              As a side note, in order to assure an initial high survey percentage, the two researchers did not ask major segments of the scientific world to participate. Those would be the segments that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.

              • Daniel Maris

                Where is the evidence that any German pursuing a very positive green energy policy has suffered even one iota of discomfort or wealth reduction? Last time I looked Germany was the biggest manufacturer and exporter in Europe and Germans were far richer than us backward UK citizens.

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                  Daniel, Daniel, Daniel, you are SO naive. Please do read Delingpole’s book Watermelons, sweetie. You’ll have to make allowances for the style: at times he is a bit over the top, it’s something you overlook as with love-handles on your mother or ear-hair in your grandad.

                • Michael Z.

                  Actually Germany starts huge program to build coal station (Since stupid Merkel canceled nuclear build-up program after non-catastrophe at Fukushima) – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/steag-starts-germany-s-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-8-years.html

                • HookesLaw

                  Your comments expose how ignorant in the literal sense you are.

            • AlecM

              If they accept the IPCC’s fake fizzicks, they’re wrong.

              I speak having trained as a process engineer who has measured, modelled and designed coupled convective and radiative heat transfer in more production plants around the World than you’ve had hot dinners, and done research in R&D labs on that and related engineering.

              100 years of empirical measurement and development of the theory proves the IPCC has been run by dimwits. The source of the mistake is Carl Sagan in his work on the Venusian atmosphere. He was contradicted by Russian scientists in the 1960s but prevailed with his incorrect fizzicks which was then adopted by Hansen and Houghton.

            • HookesLaw

              ‘climatologists’? Take a look at the training and history of Prof. Jones at East Anglia CRU. He is not trained in ‘climatology’ – which if it exists is as bogus ‘ology’ as comes. Jones’ PhD was in hydrology. Climatology is a bogus, invented ‘science’.

              Large numbers of real scientists have spoken against the theory – so far clearly unproven – of man made global warming.

    • g1lgam3sh

      Why do you people never mention the enormous howler committed by Nurse in the same programme where he imagined that human CO2 emissions were 7 times natural, and repeated it?

      At least Bob Bindschadler had the grace and integrity to acquire a DT id for the sole purpose of visiting JD’s blog and apologising personally for such a huge error.

      Has Nurse ever apologised?

      Of course not.

      Has the BBC edited the show to remove such a huge and embarrassing error?

      Of course not.

      So, I’ll ask again, why do you never mention that?

      • Moshe_Cohenovski

        Why

        Are

        You

        Incapable

        of

        Constructing

        Paragraphs?

        Do you have a vendetta against English grammar? I think we should be told. Either that or…. SHOOOO!

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    A lot of Telegraph journalists seem to be jumping ship. Smart rats.

  • ADW

    Do you think Delingpole’s getting a pay rise while he’s about it?

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      I jolly well hope so.

  • AlecM

    This should be seen in the context of the reaction to Green Politics, in reality a cover for the imposition of Corporatist Fascism dependent on a new pseudo-science.

    The analogue is Eugenics; from its Fabian roots it went to the USA to justify racism, then to Germany, ultimately at the Wannsee Conference to justify the Holocaust.

    Delingpole realised the dangers posed by the revival of this politics which has at its heart a meld of East German style Marxist totalitarianism and unrestrained Corporate and Private troughing of renewables’ subsidies and carbon trading.

    Experiment shows the justification of this politics, CO2-AGW, is near zero. The new fascists are presently pretending ‘extreme weather’ is from CO2 rise and higher humidity when the latter has in fact decreased. It’s a rerun of the 1930s. Good luck in your struggle Delingpole.

    • Daniel Maris

      So your recommendation is that government completely ignore all pronouncements by climatologists?

      Why only climatologists? Why not meterologists, public health specialists, epidemiologists, astronomers and every other discipline?

      • AlecM

        The Climatologists who accept the IPCC’s false fizzicks have disqualified themselves from the World of Science because they have proved themselves to be unprofessional.

        This also applies to Lindzen and any other scientist who does not go back to Maxwell’s Equations to establish that they know real radiative physics. They must also study the statistical thermodynamics.

        The problem is that Meteorologists and Climate Alchemists teach incorrect physics to students. It comes down to the observation that clouds cause surface warming at night. This is a correct observation.

        However, the reason for the effect is that the atmosphere is semi transparent to IR and that net surface IR, the great majority, which goes to Space via the ‘Atmospheric Window’, is in radiative equilibrium with the 2.7 deg. K cosmic microwave background.

        When a cloud gets in the way, its 10 deg. C temperature reduces the AW IR by ~85%. So, to maintain constant convection + radiation, the surface warms up.

        This mistake was first made 70 years ago. They then compound the issue by failing to understand that the reading from a ‘pyrgeometer’ is a Radiation Field, a potential energy flux, not a real one.

        Sorry, but this absolute scientific accreditation is what distinguishes the great majority who accept the IPCC pseudo-science from professionals.

        • Daniel Maris

          I can see there has been a lot of bogus stuff in climate science. But then that is true of many brances of science e.g. medicine – where you’re as likely to be killed by your statin, contraceptive, skin cream or anti-depressant as benefit from them. However, to say that doesn’t negate the value of medicine overall.

          I think the jury is still out on warming and climate change. My own personal perception is that weather has definitely got more erratic and weird over the last 20 years.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Well certainly ignore the ravings of those environmental nutters who claim AGW is real.

      • Soosoos

        Well, AlecM’s bizarre contention is that David Cameron is going to front a right-wing coup under the guise of ecofascism.
        Yes. Quite.

        • AlecM

          Everyone’s got to have a hobby…..:o)

          • Soosoos

            Well, there is that! I think gardening is probably better though :-)

      • bwims

        You can certainly ignore advice by the medical profession based on the flawed study linking heart disease to saturated fats. Carbs, grains in particular, eaten to excess are and always have been, the problem.

        Another example of politicised science generating an orthodoxy. It’s like the RC church and Galileo all over again. Sooner or later there will be trials for heresy, if Steyn fails that’s the first.

  • wallhousewart

    Aha! Now I’ve found where he’s going. I already look in at the US Breitbart website. This will be great. Good choice, James.

  • bufo75

    Amazing how quickly the nastiest trolls got here, ahead of most of the Knights !
    I wonder if Breitbart are aware of the 260 ‘Knights of Delingpole’?
    The full list (in alphabetical order) is on pages 276 to 279 of the US edition of ‘Watermelons’.
    ‘MichaelSuba’ thought up the name in conversation with ‘amanda’ and ‘Reality Returns’ and Mack did all the spade-work.
    Many of us are still around, one or two under different names.

    • Wessex Man

      and?

      • Soosoos

        Having a coterie of internet loons is apparently important.

        • mahatmacoatmabag

          will you be joining them?

          • Doggie Roussel

            Your girlfriend is following around cyberspace !

            • Moshe_Cohenovski

              maybe she’d like a free holiday in Palestine? Let’s hope her passport doesn’t have a Palestinian sounding name*

              *Foreign Office warning for travelers to Israel.

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Of course it irks you: you would prefer that he had no readers at all!

        • g1lgam3sh

          You should know Jo.

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

        Answer: How many other bloggers or writers of any kind do you know that inspire a spontaneous fan-club or support group, lasting for over 4 years and counting?

        • RichardOakes

          “The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience”

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Did you say something, Mr Taller Than The Rest of Us?

            • RichardOakes

              No, I think it was Schopenhauer.

  • Daniel Maris

    Breitbart is hardly an advertisement for right wing libertarian politics – dead at 43. Rather sad, given he was not a rock star.

  • mahatmacoatmabag

    I was both inevitable & the right decision for him. To continue to write in the Left Wing Pro-EU Telegraph along with Left Wing anti-Free Speech Fascists like Damian Thompson, who drool over every word Fabian Solutions, MickyRoss & Phil Evens posts as holy writ , simply had to come to an end

    • ColdfingerUK

      I regret his leaving the Telegraph. His blogs were one of the few places in the mainstream where sceptical opinions could be expressed and the actual science freely debated.

      • RichardOakes

        By “actual science freely debated” you mean “free to deny facts” – Delingpole is a fool.

        • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

          Psst! “denier” is the lingo of politics, not science.

          And the facts are that Mann is an infamous fraudster, Mann’s graph is bogus, IPCC is an exposed political fraud generator, the Warmists routinely fudge their “data”, and there has been no “global warming” for many, many years now.

          • RichardOakes

            Can you cite some actual scientific studies that conclude that ‘there has been no global warming for many, many years’?

            Thought not.

            I’m not denying that there’s money to be made in climate change, and people who will spin it for that purpose, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist, or isn’t exacerbated by mankind…stupid.

            • yaosxx

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/

              “Despite the alarmist “climate” claims made in an official press conference, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showed that Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.”

              http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record

              • RichardOakes

                Those are blog posts, not studies.

                • RichardOakes

                  In any case, I’d never deny that there’s a lot of rubbish spouted by both sides of a very profitable debate…but so far the only people who seem to be ‘sceptics’ are narcissistic hacks like Delingpole or people who stand to lose out from it…and the majority of ‘believers’ are scientists (plus a handful of nutcases, I’ll give you).

                  Given that a large chunk of the scientific community accept that it may be something we can aid or exacerbate, I would suggest that this is the time for pascal’s wager:

                  If we’re wrong about CC, we’ve just made a cleaner planet and reduced our dependency on fossil fuels. If we’re right, we avert catastrophe. Don’t see how we can lose.

                  Dispute it, by all means, but not from the standpoint of “I believe this is false and I will seek to prove this”, that’s not scientific, that’s moronic – the Delingpole position.

                • Baron

                  Listen, you clever scientist, tell us where in the tome that came up with the hockey stick idiocy is the variable of precipitation then?

                • RichardOakes

                  Boo to these “clever scientists”, allowing facts to change their opinions.

                • Baron

                  Just answer the question, why doesn’t precipitation feature in the algorithm in the proxy of tree rings for temperature?

                  Every gardener knows trees grow faster, and hence tree rings are ‘fatter’ in warm years with high rainfall rather than hot but dry years. The variable of rainfall is missing the model of the hockey stick’s fruitcake.

                  This, my sparring partner, is a fact, but you wouldn’t recognize one if it were to bit your ar$e shouting ‘I’m a fact’. The best you can do is a cold shower, then slipping into something more comfortable like a coma.

                • RichardOakes

                  I’ve no idea, I don’t know the study to which you refer. I’ve never actually said ‘climate change is exacerbated by mankind’, just that the evidence points to it being a possibility – given that, I’d say it’s better to err on the side of caution.

                  If you are such a fan of rigour, why aren’t you taking Delingpole to task when he rubbishes studies that he “doesn’t have time” to read – despite being paid to comment on them.

                  Thanks for wishing a coma on me. That’s really nice of you.

                • Baron

                  Stop being so touchy, Richard, it was just a put down, Baron wishes no ill on anyone.

                  Look, climate change – no problem for the blue veined barbarian, climate has been changing since the little speck of earth appeared in the universe. AGW – never, we’re just two insignificant and, more to the point, all our activity – steel bashing, driving, flying and whatever – accounts for only 4 per cent of the aggregate discharge of CO2, that’s on the margin of error on the world scale.

                • RichardOakes

                  It was just a bit of sarcasm in response to that – stop being so touchy.

                  In isolation that statistic sounds insignificant, but it doesn’t really mean anything out of context. I could say that a cancer ‘is only 0.1% of your body mass’ – it will still change the wider system enough to destroy it.

                  As before, I have never said that I believe man-made global warming to be an incontrovertible fact, it is not my place to do that. But I do believe the debate should involve figures of greater repute than an ‘interpreter of interpretations’ who admits he is driven by ‘ideological warfare’ – it’s pretty plain that Delingpole has more beef with the ‘type’ of people he thinks advance a so-called ‘green agenda’ than any science behind it (which he won’t have read anyway)

                • RichardOakes

                  It was just a bit of sarcasm in response to that – stop being so touchy!

                  In isolation that statistic sounds insignificant, but it doesn’t really mean anything out of context. I could say that a cancer ‘is only 0.1% of your body mass’ – it will still change the wider system enough to destroy it.

                  As before, I have never said that I believe man-made global warming to be an incontrovertible fact, it is not my place to do that. But I do believe the debate should involve figures of greater repute than an ‘interpreter of interpretations’ who admits he is driven by ‘ideological warfare’ – it’s pretty plain that Delingpole has more beef with the ‘type’ of people he thinks advance a so-called ‘green agenda’ than any science behind it (which he won’t have read anyway)

                • Baron

                  Your analogy misfires, Richard, you cannot save a human body if cancer takes hold by nibbling at the growth abit any more than you can stop global warming by switching bulbs. If all human activity accounts for just four per cent of the total release of the gas how much is lighting? We may be able to defeat cancer, at least temporarily, we are in no position to stop climatic changes.

                  Adaptation is the answer, Richard, listen to the great Darwin, who argued well that species that have survived had been those that adapted to climatic changes. We should do the saem, just look what all our, or other people’s endeavors to fight, contain Nature have resulted in when Nature has a go throwing at us earthquakes, tsunamis, or just gale force winds.

                  We humans are to Nature what a colony of ants is to the Amazonian rain forest.

                • RichardOakes

                  It was not intended to be an analogy, was intended to show how context is necessary to demonstrate what a percentage means.

                  To say ‘we must adapt’ is not only stating the obvious, it’s appallingly fatalistic and neglectful if we are making the problem worse. If we have it in our power to slow down a process which makes our planet more difficult to survive on then we should.

                  The other issue with which this is often conflated is energy sources. Regardless of any ‘green’ benefit, we should be looking to reduce our reliability on fossil fuels, and this is where the debate gets ridiculous – too many powerful people, nations, will lose out from it. Eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels – how long this takes is irrelevant – and then we’re going to be stuck. Renewable alternatives tend to be ‘greener’, and this is why it’s easy to rubbish them as Delingpole does.

                • Baron

                  Richard, if the whole world, all counties, were to push towards reducing the dependance on fossil fuels, Baron would back it. Sadly, not everyone does what you preach. If we don’t use the stuff others will, already do, are getting stronger, will beat us to the finishing line.

                  This, my blogging friend, is the roughness of life, sentimentality, good intentions, if onlys count for little.

                • RichardOakes

                  I appreciate your tone being more civil than certain shouty idiots on here, even if it is a little patronising!

                  That is just speculation on your part – I could just as well say that, when resources do start to dry up, countries who have invested in alternatives will be in a stronger position, wouldn’t you agree?

                • Baron

                  Just this, and then we have to call it a truce, Richard.

                  The poorly educated Slav apologizes for any bit of his response you’ve found patronising, he can assure you, and it’s an honest assurance, it wasn’t intentional.

                  And you right, any country that comes up with a cheap and sound substitute for the fossil stuff will be the winner. Unfortunately, Baron has never regarded either the wind monstrosities, or the solar eyesores a anything but a waste of resources. The long term efficacy of both just doesn’t make either one a winning proposition.

                • RichardOakes

                  Hey, apology accepted, maybe I mistook your tone!

                  No, they don’t appear to be massively efficient, it is a young technology though. I think investment is justified because that generally means technology improves – I have to say I think they look nicer than power stations too.

                  I guess Britain needs to focus its energy on the fields it can still compete on – we can’t match the superstates for sheer output, but we are still world leaders in science, research and design. Eventually the world will move to renewable energy (irrespective of any debate about global warming) I’d rather we were selling it to the world than buying it off them.

                • Ken

                  However, to say “I believe this to be true and I have all these paid-up scientists to prove it”, that is not moronic??.
                  What is moronic is Prince Charles telling the majority of his mother’s subjects that they are “headless chickens”

                • RichardOakes

                  No, because I never said that and never would.

                  The best you could say is “the evidence points to this, so far it seems the logical answer, if counter evidence comes to light we will have to think of a better answer”

                  Compare this to Delingpole’s method: “I believe this because I don’t some of the people who believe otherwise, and I will never be shaken in this belief regardless of evidence, it was never based on any anyway”

                  I know which I’d rather.

                • Ken

                  I stand corrected, I misread your post.
                  I do however, stand by the second part of my post regarding Charles.

                • RichardOakes

                  Yeah and I’d agree with that, Charles is a moron – the very concept of a ‘Royal Family’ is moronic in 2014.

                • Francis Drake

                  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. “Cleaner planet” he says.
                  What difference do you really think the UK makes to the planet when China and India plus the rest of the world are blasting out pollution like they do.
                  Add to that they pollute on your behalf because all of our manufacturing has been forcibly exported to the other side of the planet by moronic regulations that they don’t have to bow and scrape to.
                  Your “Cleaner planet” is just an earth worship religion. Your so called “scientists” believe the dogma first like high priests, and then set out writing their religious books to prove it in any deceitful way they can.

                • RichardOakes

                  It is not ‘earth worship religion’ (that is the laughter moment), it’s a belief that a cleaner planet is a better one. You think we shouldn’t bother because China and Russia don’t? How about I just stop bothering to go to work because my neighbour doesn’t?

                  If you really believe science is the faith you describe it as (and if you do, you have my sincere sympathy), perhaps you can tell me why it’s wrong?

                  Didn’t think so.

                • OutDoorRink

                  Why do you need a study to read thermometers? The data is there for all to see.

                • RichardOakes

                  I didn’t realise all it took to measure changes in global phenomena over many years was a thermometer. You want to get onto the universities mate, think of all that money they’re pissing away on equipment and stuff!

                • Baron

                  That’s right,pissing away money is the right answer. It should be stopped, the money diverted to dredging and stuff.

                  The secret of survival is adaptation, only the brainless could think we, the humans, can rule Nature. The Red menace of the East when still around wanted to ‘command the winds and the rains’. Well, they’re gone, imploded, the rains and winds are still here, just turn on the TV, you’ll see.

                • yaosxx

                  Oh well you go and tell that to NASA and NOAA!

            • slyblade

              Go stand in an empty large room and shout stupid many times. when you hear an Echo, listen to it

              • RichardOakes

                Got anything to add to the discussion?

                • slyblade

                  yes

                  Flood devastation as UK suffers worst winter rainfall in 250 years

                  what was the excuse back then?

                • RichardOakes

                  I don’t think we’re in the habit of making ‘excuses’ for weather.

                  So far, I’ve seen people posit theories as to why it might be happening. Most people do as they should, listen to the theory, look at the evidence, make their own mind up. However, on both extremes of the debate (never a good place to me) people like yourself make your mind up before you’ve even been presented with anything.

                • slyblade

                  You were the one that asked me had i anything to add to the discussion. I simply pointed out that we have had weather like this in the past, and no doubt will again in the future

                  Everything thing else you extrapolated from my post is in your own head.

                • AlecM

                  That 250 year statistic is wrong. it is the average UK rainfall in January. This winter’s rainfall is not major by comparison.

                • Holly

                  It is only raining because it is not cold.

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                  Oh yeah? How do you explain that there is now snow, which you’ll have to agree is cold precipitation, in all 50 states of the USA except for the state of Florida?

                • Holly

                  Erm…..Because it’s a bit colder than over here???
                  The fact that it is WINTER might also be playing a part!

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                  Ah, but this is surely GLOBAL — and wait for the next bit — WARMING! Which means that if you’re warmer, surely we should be warmer, too? But you haven’t had a warm winter and neither have we. Tell me if I’m going too fast for you.

                • UKSteve

                  Errrmm…. there are only 50 states in the USA. So it must include Florida, or else it’s 49.

                • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                  What part of ‘except for the state of Florida’ didn’t you understand?

                • UKSteve

                  Errrm…it’s you who does not understand the English langauge. You’ve now made a crashing fool of yourself.

                  How can it be “….in all 50 states of the USA….” if Florida is excepted. Yes, you seem like a Breitbart supporter, all right.

                • Danny K

                  Keep adjusting any facts you don’t agree with to fit you narrative. You people are idiots. Plain and simple. The computer climate models are wrong. Sorry to break that to you. Hop aboard an eco-tour of the antarctic ice flow. Strap yourself to a Russian oil rig. Polar bears are dying. Keep it up, losers. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere. Everyone is waking up to the scam.

                • Holly

                  Snow.

                • yaosxx

                  There’s your echo again!

            • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

              Back here in the land of the lucid, you don’t get to answer your own questions.

              “The RSS data for September 1996 to November 2013 show no global
              warming at all for 17 years 3 months, despite a continuing record rate
              of increase in CO2 concentration.”

              http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/no-global-warming-for-17-years-3-months-a-monckton-analysis/

              Oh, and temperature readings aren’t about “believe”.

              And if you Warming cultists were scientifically literate and so knew what 99% of all those Evil and scary “greenhouse gasses” were, you’d be bulldozing the Amazon jungle.

            • AlecM

              There was plenty of AGW in the 1980s and 1990s. It then stopped because it wasn’t from CO2.

              • Soosoos

                Please stop your pseudoscience, AlecM.

                Have you published your groundbreaking paper that overturns all climate science yet?

                That Nobel Prize won’t collect itself!

                • AlecM

                  I submitted a version of it last Summer.

                  Since then, I have introduced quantitative experimental evidence.

                • Soosoos

                  Any chance you can upload the version you submitted?

            • Baron

              Why was there no correlation between the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures before 1800, ha?

              • RichardOakes

                Who is ‘ha’?

            • Ken

              Oakesie,
              you can try this one from a proper scientist,
              The parliamentary committee for Energy and Climate change has interviewed three noted sceptics of global warming theories.
              Professor Lindzen Of MIT pointed out that there had been no increase in global temperatures for 16years.
              He also took the view that brighter scientists
              had chosen to study subjects such as physics, maths or chemistry rather than climate.
              He also stated that “Whatever the UK is doing about climate change will have no effect on your climate. It will have a
              profound effect on your economy”
              He also stated that the warming reported between 1979 and 1998 was no greater than for the period between 1919 and 1940.

              A witness called Nicholas Lewis claimed that climate models are out and that they show a warming three times higher than actual measurements.
              His view is that the physics has been fudged by parameterisation.

              As Lindzen said, “if the models can’t get today’s distribution of climate right, why would that be reliable for the future?”

              A witness called Donna Laframboisehad found that 21 of the IPCC report’s44 chapters had used less than 60% peer reviewed sources.

              Lindzen’s final comment , when asked if we should do something about climate change:

              “I’m saying that not only we don’t know what to do about it but that almost everything proposed would have certain
              consequences for people – and very uncertain consequences for the environment…..it is clear that there is no policy better than doing nothing.”

              The sketch of these exchanges is in :

              http://order-order.com/2014/01/30/sketch-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#more-159718

              • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

                Thanks for that important summary, Ken.

                • Ken

                  My pleasure, Swanky

              • RichardOakes

                I’m being given a position on here that I’ve never actually held, though this is a nice change from abuse for not going along with the consensus (something Delingpole is vaunted for despite being unable to reference anything but his own opinion), I thank you for that.

                I’ve never said that I believe that we are definitely altering the climate, or that we’re going about it sorting it out the right way, that there aren’t people who stand to profit from green-mania – again, funny how a self-styled crusader for free markets like Delingpole finds this so objectionable as a point of fact.

                It seems to me to be a reasonable possibility, I’ve yet to see someone who isn’t a hack just rubbish the idea outright – and in that case I would rather prepare for something that doesn’t happen than not prepare for something that does.

          • Soosoos

            But you’re curiously unable to provide any proof of these claims.

            Can you please try to surprise me once?

            • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

              “unable to provide any proof”

              Aside from the data displayed in the chart, and elsewhere provided and discussed?

              Thanks for the added proof of the scientific illiteracy REQUIRED of Warming cultists.

              • Soosoos

                Wild assertion.

                Please point me to a robust proof of fraud. Peer-reviewed literature or official investigation.

                And you have the cheek to accuse me of scientific illiteracy. Lol.

                • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

                  It’s a bit late in the thread to pretend you would ever allow reality to seep into your mysticism, you shameless dolt.

                • Soosoos

                  So you can’t cite a single piece of peer-reviewed or legal evidence that there has been fraud.

                  Isn’t that just a little bit embarrassing?

                • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

                  Your inability to spot evidence, even when it’s stuck right up against your snout, SHOULD embarrass someone. That it does not is why I used the term “shameless dolt”.

                • BlueScreenOfDeath

                  “So you can’t cite a single piece of peer-reviewed or legal evidence that there has been fraud.”

                  You have been supplied with just that, time after time.

                  But, being a paid troll, you utterly refuse to acknowledge any source that fails to fit your very narrow mandate.

                  Of course, you would lose your income if you did otherwise, wouldn’t you?

                  What is it you get, $3.50 per post?

                • Ken

                  Soosoos,
                  please read my post above. Then take as long as you want to deny it.
                  Then I can call you a DENIER

          • guthrie

            Here’s ahint to you- Delingpole admitted he couldn’t judge the science and his writings make it clear he was using politics. So it’s appropriate. ANd we aren’t warmiong from the last ice age, where did the heat go/ come from?

            • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

              “where did the heat go/come from”

              Do you actually believe that nothing in the Universe — no planet, no star; nothing –can ever cool down? You Warming cultists are scary-stupid.

              Anyway, “the heat” comes from a place called the Sun. It goes to a place called the rest of the Universe.

              • guthrie

                That’s an amazingly stupid stretch from what I typed. you’re correct about the heat from the sun etc, but the end of the miniature ice age happened a century or two ago – the evidence is clear that the warming seen in the last 40 years is mostly our fault.

                • http://tylernull.blogspot.com/ TylerNull of YouTube

                  Wrong. You’re not even up to date on the latest Warm-monger marketing. Those fraudsters are keenly aware there has been no warming for the past decade. Hint: they changed their slogan from “global warming” to “climate change”.

                  I’d say “pick a lie and stick with it”, but I rather enjoy watching you thermometer mystics bitch-slap each other with your internally inconsistent frauds.

                  Instead of helping political hustlers blame, and punish, productive people for the weather, have your parents sue whatever teachers’ labor union defrauded them out of all that tax money.

                  They have a VERY strong case.

            • Mikesmount

              Very loosely, heat comes from the sun and is radiated into space. When the earth is very icy more of the sun’s heat is radiated into space, when it is not icy more is absorbed.

              This ignores the core heat of the earth, maintained by nuclear reactions deep in the core

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          Well only in the eyes of Eco fascist environmental nutters who ignore the science.

        • AlecM

          What ‘facts’ does he deny?

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Don’t bother asking, Alec. Being superior and tall is enough for the gentleman in question. He doesn’t need to dirty himself with facts.

            • RichardOakes

              No, don’t bother asking, because then you might actually have to point to a fact that I’ve denied, and the simple fact is that there aren’t any.

              You have yet to provide me with one fact, one way or the other, apparently believing crude aspersions to be an acceptable equivalent.

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Oh look, it’s Mr Decent-and-not-a-lefty, again. Oops–don’t forget ‘tall’! One of the herd of ‘independent minds’ heh heh heh

          • RichardOakes

            Is that the best you can do?

            Not that I’m surprised, you are a moron

        • global city

          List those ‘facts’ you claim?

          • RichardOakes

            Where did I claim them? (Not trying to duck your request, this thread is too tangled to make sense of now!)

            • global city

              I don’t know! LoL!
              I apologise, I must have pressed ‘reply’ to the wrong post.

              • RichardOakes

                No worries, this comment thread is anything but well-ordered.

        • jazz606

          “…..By “actual science freely debated” you mean “free to deny facts” …”

          Another CP graduate ?

          • RichardOakes

            Yawn. I disagree so I must be a CP/Marxist/[insert boring cliche] shill. Is that what you call ‘free debating’? Try a bit harder eh?

            It seems anyone who wants to throw in with ‘qualified researchers’ over a man who ‘doesn’t have time’ to read scientific papers (taking, as they do, several hours to read – far too much time for a man paid to comment on them to spend, I know) they get low-grade abuse like this thrown at them.

            Delingpole doesn’t like the ‘type’ who he thinks tend to advance the ‘green agenda’, so he tells himself it’s all a con. His opinion was never based on any facts (just ‘interpretations of interpretations’, apparently), so facts will not change it.

            • FuglydeQuietzapple

              The Fogey screechy anti Green stance was a lazy means to lucre. Rather like the trivial use of “marxist” common here.

            • jazz606

              I obviously touched a nerve.

              • RichardOakes

                Yes, you did, your comment was as idiotic as it was predictable and pointless, I’ll never get those two minutes back.

                Anything to add to the discussion?

                • jazz606

                  No. I’ve wasted enough time on you.

                • RichardOakes

                  Your second sentence is something of a non sequitur.

                  So, you accuse people of being ‘CP graduates’, they say no, then you stop talking to them. Must be fun.

                • jazz606

                  Hang on a mo’ while I look up non sequitur in my Collins Gem Dictionary.

    • Moshe_Cohenovski

      I think he couldn’t stand the DT’s fawning and grovelling pro-Israel worship any longer.

      • yaosxx

        You’re kidding right??? Funnily enough JD is very pro-Israel – how does that affect your silly comment…?

        • Moshe_Cohenovski

          Try listening to him at a dinner party when he’s had a glass or two…. the mask slips – shall we say.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            What a complete fraud you are.

      • mahatmacoatmabag

        Really, you surprise me, I would never have known ?
        Shouldn’t you be out somewhere right now daubing Swastika’s on walls or shouting ” Allah Akbar ” on patrol in Tower Hamlets ?

        • Doggie Roussel

          But his moniker is Moshe_Cohenovski… he’s part of your tribe!

        • Moshe_Cohenovski

          I wouldn’t want to get in the way of your spraying ‘gas the Arabs’ would I?

      • gerontius

        This is a civilised site Moshe, there’s no room here for your anti-semitic drivel.Crawl back under your stone and sniff your jackboots in private.
        Thanks

    • Doggie Roussel

      Some extremely dodgy upticks !

      • Moshe_Cohenovski

        Oy! That’s antisemitism… now, silence or I’ll report you!

    • Doggie Roussel

      Until a couple of days ago you had your deep-velvety-dark-chocolate tongue so far up DT’s fundament that it was a wonder you could draw breath….. and now, all this hatred for the sainted one…

  • Bert3000

    Presumably the telegraph were about to fire him

    • MyRightPenguin

      Why would they fire the blogger who receives by far and away the most comments and hits? Keep saying that to yourself if it makes yourself feel better. No, the comments above about the DT turning towards the left and limiting the range of topics that JD could cover has a lot to do with it (e.g. the DT avoided talking about islamofascism and would censor any comments talking about it). The Telegraph though appears to be a lost cause, it’s just becoming an extension of big government tie-ins with crony capitalism and will likely follow the same trajectory as Tory party membership.

      • dalai guevara

        Why? Because apart from turning the DT into a dating site for OAP fruitcakes the blog had been blown to pieces by denier wacko nutjobs like you, that’s why. It’s ‘all gone wrong, lol’. Sweet Lord Jesus.

        This sort of thing is no longer acceptable in this day and age – the cost model (as you imply) does not work, the content (as you insinuate) certainly does not deliver, and most notably the clientele which consisted largely of cretinous follower Dubya groupie-types screaming at each other was regurgitating endlessly links and posts of juvenile fatuousness, easily disscted within seconds by plain amateurs like myself.

        JD will be well-placed in is new role and which will be a God-send for simpletons to spend the rest of their natural agreeing with themselves. Go on Pingu, will you do us a favour and go and join them?

        • MyRightPenguin

          You are a legend in your own mind in your bedsit. Even your fellow trolls have been embarrassed about you. I’m glad you enjoy being a troll but it’s just a fad and one day you will wake up and realise you also need to grow up. Thankfully I won’t have see the road crash. Good luck pal.

          • dalai guevara

            Is that so you little twit? Your little magic does not work here, matey – and I am still posting. We all know that you are a paid up apologist groupie reimbursed at minimum not living wage level for your efforts tirelessly making sure master Denialingpole gets his unequivocal and unopposed say. Now you will need to go and see him in hiding posting from the cave of extreme obscurity. As someone else put it here – journalistic death at 43.

            This is in fact an obituary (note the tone of the accompanying imagery?). We will miss you all dearly. Ta-ra, nutcase.

          • dalai guevara

            Is that so you little wiener? Your little magic does not work here, matey – and I am still posting. We all know that you are a paid up apologist groupie reimbursed at minimum not living wage level for your efforts, untiringly making sure master Denialingpole gets his unequivocal and unopposed say. Now we come to understand that you will need to go and follow him into hiding as he will now be pontificating from the cave of extreme obscurity. As someone else put it here – journalistic death at 43.

            This is in fact an obituary (note the tone of the accompanying imagery?). We will miss you all dearly. Ta-ra, matey.

            • Moshe_Cohenovski

              leave him alone, he walked tall in delingpole’s shadow, now he’s a non-entity with the avatar of bird that can never get off the ground.

            • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

              I looked up ‘fantasist’ and there you were! Only in purple. Must be a slightly out-of-date edition of Nabobs of The Nutty ‘Net.

  • CraigStrachan

    A decisive move to the sidelines by Mr Delingpole.

    • yaosxx

      Ha Ha Ha! I guess if you believe that then you’ll believe anything! LOL!

  • storibund

    Looking forward to reading his columns on Breitbart UK!

  • anncalba

    James Delingpole, who he? It’s possible 99.9% of UK citizens have never heard of him. Wont lie awake worrying about it.

    • Gail Combs

      I am in the USA and I love Delingpole’s wit.

    • yaosxx

      From the diary of a Ms Nobody…

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      Those that don’t know will find out, as you’re doing.

  • cg

    Breitbart.com is full of nutters. Quite nasty and ill-informed nutters at that.

    • ohforheavensake

      I’ll forebear from making the obvious comment.

      • Daniel Maris

        “Yes it is.” ?

      • mahatmacoatmabag

        that you are a nutter , Phil

    • mahatmacoatmabag

      full of nutters you say , then you fully qualified to read it !

  • ohforheavensake

    Breitbart?

    Hahahahahaa….. dear me…. poor chap.

    • mahatmacoatmabag

      Hi Phil, dear me ….. poor chap …..

    • CraigStrachan

      Well, let’s hope at least he’s getting a lot of Yankee $$, and might be less of a poor chap.

  • lgrundy

    “right-wing muck-racking” [sic]

    By which, I presume, you mean exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the Left.

    • grammarschoolman

      He certainly means ‘much-raking’, not ‘muck-racking’…

      • lgrundy

        Thanks. ‘Sic erat scriptum’ added.

      • Ken

        He meant….”much binding…in the marsh”
        but forgot the words

    • ohforheavensake

      Nope- I’d guess he means it’s a thoroughly nasty site: which it is.

      • mahatmacoatmabag

        and since you are ” thoroughly nasty ” you should enjoy spamming it like you do on the Telegraph

        • Doggie Roussel

          46 upvotes… and not a single name ????????

          • MyRightPenguin

            Doggie, hit refresh and you will see. If you dot your comment out you can save your embarrassment, and I will then do the same.

            • Moshe_Cohenovski

              Nothing embarrassing about pointing out the vacuous sh*tlist that accompany’s Israel’s comments.

              • bwims

                What, not even a mother to vote you up?

          • Moshe_Cohenovski

            Nothing to see, move along there… everyone a zionist, what’s so bad about that?

            • bwims

              Ah, you found your one mate.

          • bwims

            F-A-I-L_!

  • Bill McInroy

    ‘quites’?

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here