Recently he has come under criticism (again) from the skeptical community after his article in the Telegraph (istyosty link) claimed that wind-farms kill whales. Professor Boyd, one of the scientists whose research this article was based on quickly distanced themselves from Delingpole’s conclusions in the comments section of the online version, he said;

This article is an abomination. Its quotes me extensively. At no point in all the interactions I have had with The Press on this issue have I ever mentioned wind farms. I disagree with the way the article was written and especially with the implications of its headline. Several of the apparent quotations from me are not ones that I recognise. I never spoke to a journalist from the Daily Telegraph so I wonder how this article was compiled. At very least it was second-hand reporting.

That’s fairly damning. You would think after being called out for shoddy reporting by a number of bloggers and the scientist that you based your article on any reasonable person would either apologise or just hide away and pretend you’d never written the damned thing. Not Delingpole. Now we have a follow-up article defending the original article and attacking his critics. Namely Professor Boyd;

And, yes, when he (Boyd) talked about “renewable energy” posing a problem for beaked whales and other sensitive species perhaps it wasn’t “wind farms” he meant. Perhaps it was all those incredible noisy solar panels you get near the sea. Or maybe the vibrations from a Norwegian hydro-electric plant which somehow penetrate the Scandinavian land mass and enter the world’s whale regions. Or – well who knows just what was in Professor Boyd’s head when he expressed his concern that “renewable energy” might pose a “serious problem” for “beaked whales and other sensitive species.” Perhaps we shall never know.

It takes a unique intellect to belittle the source of information for your article while standing by the article based on that source. Nice one. The rest of the article is basically a rant against skeptics and the skeptical community in general.

Have you been enjoying the saga about the wind farms that might or might not kill whales? I do hope so. The aspect of it which I have particularly enjoyed is the sanctimonious and hypocritical rage of a vociferous lobby group of self-styled “skeptics.” (See here, here  and here.) Though mostly based in Britain, they spell themselves in the American style to distinguish themselves from “sceptics” like me. That’s because, unlike proper sceptics they – get this! – are card-carrying members of the Church of Climate Change.

Delingpole wants to make out he is the ‘sceptic’ because he disagree with skeptics. It’s is a ridiculous position to put yourself in. All it does is show how totally ignorant he is of what skepticism is. In Delingpole’s head there seems to be a one-upmanship of skepticism. He must be the biggest skeptic because he disagrees with the most people.

I think there is a common misconception that in order to be a skeptic you have to automatically be in the minority. Being a skeptic has nothing to do with your position on a particular subject. Skepticism is about the method and approach you use in order to reach your opinion. Saying that you don’t read papers because you haven’t got the time isn’t a skeptical position. The skeptical approach is coming to a subject with an open mind taking the time to look at the empirical and objective evidence there is for something and then reaching your conclusions based on what is known at the time. If further evidence were presented that contradicts this view then a true skeptic would change their opinion.

So when Delingpole, shows us the evidence that “beyond all reasonable doubt” wind farms;

“Despoil countryside, frighten horses, chop up birds, spontaneously combust, drive down property prices, madden those who live nearby with their subsonic humming, drive up electricity prices, promote rentseeking, make rich landowners richer (and everyone else poorer), ruin views, buy more electric sports cars for that dreadful Dale Vince character, require rare earth minerals which cause enormous environmental damage, destroy 3.7 real jobs for every fake “green” job they “create”, blight neighbourhoods, kill off tourism and ruin lives.”

Then we can all believe him. At the moment it appears the evidence for all this is lacking; see Atomic Spin’s excellent rebuttal. His constant attacks on global warming science and renewable energy sources are ideologically driven not evidence based. Who was it that said, ‘You can have your own opinions, you can’t have your own facts’?

Delingpole isn’t a skeptic or a sceptic, he’s just a run of the mill journalist trying to get a bit of attention by writing crap about a subject he knows very little about and won’t take the time to learn.

“The current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn’t tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time.”

Do you see that Daily Express? The current cold weather doesn’t tell us anything about climate change stupid.

The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Telegraphhave been quick to jump on the anti global warming bandwagon albeit a little more underhandedly. Both featured articles about research by Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany. His research, according to the Mail, challenges the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs. Although the Telegraph’s report was slightly better I especially liked the way they referred to our current temperatures as ‘Arctic’ (with a capital ‘a’) you know that place where average winter temperatures can be as low as ?40 °C? Not that I would want to accuse them of exaggerating. The problem with these articles is that the Leibniz Institute research doesn’t challenge global warming at all, and despite clarifications from the scientists, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, they went ahead and misrepresented it anyway. I’m picturing a petulant child right now with his fingers in his ears going ‘NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you’.  

It’s been a busy week for The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Telegraphwho, not content with being on the global warming denial bandwagon, decided to jump on the anti health and safety bandwagon as well when they accused the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) of issuing warnings to businesses not to grit public paths because this could lead to legal action. Was this more evidence of a heath and safety conscious society gone mad? Was it balls. In actual fact the IOSH position on gritting public areas is almost exactly the opposite. The Sunday Telegraph did take the time to contact the IOSH before they printed the article who were only happy to provide a statement from their Policy & Technical Director Richard Jones but this was ignored. ‘NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you’.  

What is the point in contacting people to clarify a story if all you are going to do is completely ignore them? When are there going to be measures in place to stop this sort of behaviour? At the moment newspapers can just carry on fitting stories to suit their political agenda regardless of whether the evidence or story supports it or not. Without proper punishments and legislation the media is free to essentially make shit up and get away with it time and time again. Its a disgrace and the public deserve better from their news outlets regardless of their political bias.