"Sceptic of Sceptics" James Delingpole Defends Homeopathy. Uh?

James Delingpole likes to see himself as some maverick voice, alone in the old wilderness. The only one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind, who can see the whole man made climate change thingy for the elaborate fraud that it is. He claims that this is why he is "reviled" and not because of bad methodology. So it doesn't really help his cause when he writes articles defending homeopathy, and wheels out all the straw man arguments all homeopathic apologists are presumably honour bound to wheel out. You know the "scientists have been wrong before." "It's just like a new religion." and so on.

Tom Chivers has a new post debunking the argument Delingpole makes. He makes perhaps the best counter argument to the claim that people who dismiss homeopathy (or CC deniers) are just as bad as the inquisitors persecuting heretics:

"I’m sure some people do get overly aggressive about some of these things (alas, we don’t all have James’s saintly good manners when it comes to dealing with those with whom we disagree). But the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I (to put myself in some serious company), were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position. I don’t even know what “evidence” you could present a Spanish inquisitor to convince them that Jewish children shouldn’t be forcibly converted, or what evidence you could give a witchfinder to show that witches don’t actually exist. The comparison is a nonsense one.

I'll have to remember that one!

James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon Pt II

As we know in part one, Climate "sceptic" James Delingpole was made to look rather silly on the Horizon documentary about "Science under attack" by the royal society president Paul Nurse. Delingpole has been quite slow to respond on his blog about the affair. It really went belly up a bit for him and I think he has been stumped a bit by how badly it backfired for him* and has put up a few articles criticising Ben Goldacre for calling him a "penis" and attacking him for being an "intellectual coward" by supporting the consensus on AGW. Which I think is out of line against a man who could have been taken to the cleaners by the notoriously litigious poo lady and by exposing the murky underworld of the big medical companies and the AIDS denial in South Africa in the "Bad Science" book. He then attacks the mathematician Simon Singh** for being a bit of a bully for tweeting about our lone crusader:


Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate


Oh bloody boohoo. Delingpole, who ironically is not averse to resorting to a bit of playground abuse (libtards) is trying to set himself up as the victim of some kind of Twitter smear campaign of abuse for his noble stance on climate change. Now let me make it clear, I don't approve if he has received threatening messages, but bloody hell he can't half give it but is incapable of taking it. He has essentially used his blog to promote the idea that climate scientists are colluding in a scam to extort trillions of dollars from a gullible Joe Public. That he somehow has somehow he has seen through the tissue of lies that some of the most qualified climatologists in the world have failed to notice. These are big claims, so you might expect to get a bit of flack for stating it. Sorry James that's how the cookie crumbles mate. As I said he has taken a metaphorical cricket bat around the chops, and as everyone knows when the debate goes tits up resort to straw man arguments. Let's take a look at some of Jameses.


"Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent"


This shows James has little understanding of how either to critically appraise scientific research properly and what scepticism is. Possibly it is the result of those with a journalistic background being attracted to holding contrarian views from what they perceive as an aloof "elite" Delingpole appears to believe "scientists" are some monolithic cult who dictatorially decide from on high what is scientifically orthodox and what isn't. The vigorously researched evidence for AGW was simply not obtained in that manner. It is not unreasonable for a qualified scientist to take at face value the "views" of an unqualified layman who doesn't appear to know what science is.


"There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend."


There is a consensus amongst scientists, a very rigorous one supported by shitloads of evidence to back it up. I shall repeat this again loud and clear.


SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OR DOGMATIC ORTHODOXY. NOT AT ALL!!!


Thanks for listening!


Well you can split hairs over what you think the motives of the AGW sceptics may be, but I take the philosophy of Johann Hari. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't. Oh and don't accuse your opponents of trying to rubbish the cause; and then do just that in the same paragraph.


"Well I’m sick of it."


Blog about something else then.


"What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time."


Nurse had a debate with you my friend. Horizon asked you on to do that and you fucked it up. Want some credibility, stop relying on shitty research.


**"My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”


If you are going to accuse the folks who wrote these papers of some sort of cover up, I suggest you start swatting up a bit. Bloody hell if you want to stick your neck out, do the homework.


"What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”;"


How would you know? You haven't read the bloody evidence. You just bloody admitted it!


"that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has;"


Well quite possibly. But it's a bloody good sign of an accurate theory. Newtons third law works just as well today as it did in old Isaacs time.


"that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is."


Yeah because high petrol prices and and end to cheap flights have always been real vote winners. Anyway if a scientist did discover that AGW wasn't occurring it would be the find of the century. You'd be lauded, showered with cash and grants from the oil companies. There sending the Nobel Prize your way as well. Real life isn't like a Michael Chrichton novel.


"and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse."


But a sciencey background sort of helps. Anyone can read a scientific paper, but an unqualified journalist can make mistakes with scientific papers. Melanie Philips for instance didn't realise that Cochrane papers were specifically designed to criticise scientific papers, so she jumped to the wrong conclusions over what was said about the quality of Andrew Wakefields detractors findings. That is why I am all for opening science up to the greater public and journalists who have to report scientific stuff to their readers, but often fail to do so very well.


"Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical."


Yes, as just because you haven't actually read the peer reviewed papers on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean you can't loftily proclaim that it's all one huge con by the people who wrote them, and have people give you a round of applause for it.


"“If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”


This reasoning is how; inevitably- these kinds of things can self sustain themselves. If they do take you on, they are the scary "establishment" trying to bully the heretics. If they don't take you on, they are trying to hush you up and censor you. The MMR causes autism and Intellegent Design proponents trot this very same argument out, and because it is so superficially plausible on one level, that is why pseudoscience can be so persist ant on the flimsiest of evidence to actually support it. So it is with trepidation that I quote Delingpoles closing words on the whole affair*


"This has been a bruising week for me. But in the long term, I have a strong suspicion, it is going to do far, far more damage to the BBC, to Sir Paul Nurse (and, by extension, to the integrity of the Royal Society) than ever it has done to me."


Pseudoscience, the gift that keeps on giving.

James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon (Part I)

It's unbelievable! I go away for a few days (hence why this one follows on a bit later than the actual interview I am posting about) and I get confronted with a feast of fertile blogging fodder that I had no idea was going on as I haven't been on the web at all during the duration, (not always an entirely bad thing to do now and then.) or looked at a newspaper the whole time. Melanie Philips has pissed off almost everyone on Twitter with a bizarre and ill thought out column about the "gay agenda" pushing homosexuality to schoolkids via special awareness topics in their lessons, designed to "destroy the concept of traditional sexuality". Jesus! Two sports pundits given the boot for slagging off a lady ref. A hard line Christian GP who has been appointed to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. This is a pretty impressive list of potential topics, but old news is no news, so I have decided to retrospectively comment on the story that has the most personal interest to me of which I have only just found out about this past day as a result of my self imposed news blackout. A story involving a well known climate change skeptic who ended up looking like a complete berk on a BBC documentary. This was one of the most embarrasing interviews ever to grace the box that didn't involve Bill Grundy and any member of the Sex Pistols.

The Horizon documentary titled "Science Under Attack" was presented by the President of the Royal Society; Sir Paul Nurse. In it Nurse was concerned about the discrepancies between what Scientific consensus has to say about - in particular -climate change; GM crops and the nature of the HIV virus, and the general views about these issues in the eyes of the lay public. The programme was good and I genuinely encourage you watch it on I-player (link provided) if you haven't seen it. It focused primarily on climate change, and I was a bit disappointed the other topics took perhaps as much of a backburner as they did as they are all interesting topics in themselves. But as I said climate change is probably the most obvious contemporary scientific topic that creates a controversial divergence between the scientific consensus of climate scientists (around 97 percent agree man made climate change is occurring) and the layperson (half of Americans and a third of Britons think ACC is being deliberately exaggerated) It is unsurprising then that Professor Nurse interviews a climate change denier to find out why this is so, and into this steps James Delingpole, the Daily Telegraphs resident "ACC is bollocks" blogger. The interviews with him in the documentary are stunning, not because Delingpole puts in a good performance, but because; in American parlance - he got his ass handed to him on a plate, a big silver platter even. It is pure car crash stuff. Delingpole is edgy and clearly out of his depth even before the fun starts. Delingpole dismisses "scientific consensus" as unscientific (I presume he makes the mistake of thinking it is just the same as conventional wisdom. Delingpole makes broad sweeping statements throughout the interview but never elaborates, so you can see why we may have to speculate on what he means). Nurse disagrees and says that this amount of consensus over such a long period of time is a healthy sign that the evidence is very strong, and that as scientific superstardom results from demolishing established theories, it must have been pretty robust or it would have been disproved. The killer blow is landed when Nurse proposes a hypothetical scenario to Delingpole and his "consensus is not science" stance. Say he was suffering from cancer and the doctors had come to a unanimous consensually conclusion about his treatment plan, (which happens often) would he reject this treatment for one that hadn't, as happens every once in a blue moon, if that? Delingpole is floored by this. He visibly looks like he wants to stop the interview and hastily tries to change the subject onto the East Anglian e-mails thing. I know some editing goes on with this kind of thing, but my god Delingpole comes off badly on this one. Nurse has stumbled upon what i think is the best way to combat pseudoscience, or conspiracy theories. Point out the bleeding obvious flaws in their logic. People like Delingpole cherry pick data (and ACC involves lots of figures to selectively shove into an article), and quote figures out of context to bolster and inflate the validity of their "stance". They never go for the biggy, disprove the warming effects of carbon dioxide, demolish the whole ACC theory to a chorcoally pile of dust at it's root. They can't. Nurse however is in the position of being able to quietly and calmly attack the major flaws of their arguments without turning it into a slanging match involving the "evil establishment" against the lone Galileo figure in the eyes of a layperson, or looking like a dusty old don being one upped by a polemicist pulling out all the logical fallacies to make his point look one hundred times better than it actually is. It's like calmly explaining to a moon hoaxer who says they had to remove all the stars from the photos, thus why they are not visible; that thinking that not one astronomer or scientist looking at those photos would notice that the stars suddenly being missing was a bit dodgy - is so monumentally fucking stupid that anyone who thinks this shouldn't comment on opening a loaf of bread, let alone expect anyone to take them remotely seriously. The interview also shows (and I am aware of post production editing) to some extent that Delingpole can dish it out on his blog (sometimes in quite a dubious manner) with the largely receptive audience, but is a little squeamish at taking it himself. Hell if as a non-scientist; you want to dismiss 97 percent of respected climate scientists as liars, expect to have to face the harsh questions from a critical point of view. Let us hope we are reclaiming some of the "war against science." Point out the major flaws of the key arguments the pseudoscientists are peddling, and not let them cherry pick on their own terms, and perhaps; perhaps popular perceptions of science will improve. Here's hoping anyway.

Turn in to part II tomorrow where we look at James Delingpoles take on the whole interview.

*POSTSCRIPT. Although the hypothetical question posed by Paul Nurse and Delingpoles response are the point the interview jumped the shark, this doesn't even take into account the lofty claim on his behalf that the entire peer review process has been trashed by the "climategate" affair. How? Again he makes lofty announcements and never backs them up with evidence, or indeed anecdotes. He even admits that it is really a political and not a dispute about scientific research. The admission that he hasn't the time or the scientific know how (Mr. Delingpole has a degree in English) to read peer reviewed research papers on climate change is astounding for a man who spends about 95 percent of his blog "proving" how ACC is made up by communists or whoever. How can he know that the peer review process is irrevocabally damaged by the East anglia broohaha if oh... he hasn't read a fucking peer reviewed paper on the damn subject. Christ in heaven, what was he thinking in this interview? Then he pulls the coup de gracé by saying his job isn't to interpret the data, it is to interpret the interpreted data. Or as it is known in every day terms, "Just having an opinion on stuff". Watch it, it truly has to be seen to be believed.

Ed West Tries to Tame the Telegraph Blogs Comments (Good Luck!)

Some of the comments on the Torygraph Blogs have to be seen to be believed. The mean mindedness, the stupid conspiracy theories, the dreadful racism, or even just the fact that even the most innocuous of posts seems to end up descending into an argument about holocaust denial. Just the simple lack of humanity of some of them are enough to make you want the end to come that bit quicker. I don't know if it just the luxury of anonymity that produces comments such as those, or we have some pretty fucked up people out there? It is sometimes like peering into some dark dark abyss, when you think to yourself what sort of mindset spews this kind of stuff out.

I also think it must be rather a both embarrassing and unpleasant bit of baggage for the bloggers themselves, and this was sort of confirmed by a blog entry by Ed West today appealing to the people leaving comments to perhaps tone it down a bit. Read what he has to say and not just mouth off all the racist garbage you can think of for once. It seems he has been spooked a bit about a previous post about what he sees as the problem of ghettoism in Muslim communities in Birmingham. The post is a little intellectually lazy, drawing on second hand anecdotes to come to sweeping conclusions, but he is entitled to write about what he likes and community relations are after all an important issue that should be raised. It is the tone of some of the comments that bothers him (and me), they are pretty hard core and some revolve around hints of ethnic war and parts of Britain being ethnically cleansed. Trying to restore some sanity and perspective to the points he was originally making West appeals to the better angels of those leaving the extreme comments:

"People who type “why can’t we discuss this issue?” and then write underneath “WE NEED TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS” don’t seem to understand that they’re the problem, not the solution. The Standpoint story is depressing enough without the comments underneath adding to it. So for God’s sake, try to remember it’s human beings we’re talking about here – don’t kill debate with hatred, and if you have any hatred, save it for me."

I have a feeling that his appeal will largely fall on deaf ears. You will often hear; say a Mail columnist missing the point by claiming that no-one can discuss immigration or race relations without being deemed "racist" by the "liberal elite", that's not really the case. As this appeal unintentionally admits, a lot of it is down to the fact that racist comments have a nasty habit of derailing even the most innocuous of debates on this issue, not always just a fear of some elite howling "racist" at anyone who dares mention the topic. It is little wonder that those on the mainstream tread warily in this area.

Bashing the Bishop Pete of Willesdon

Bishop Pete of Willesdon, bloody Willesdon? Do they have an Archbishop of Wythenshawe? A Vicar of the parish made up of the Burger King on the Northbound Trowell Services on the M1? -. I digress. Bish Pete is officially the most horridest man in Christendom after he made some stupid comments on Facebook about the royal family, Katie and Williams wedding likely lasting seven years, Chas's ears, the royals being a bunch of philanderers -and a tasteless joke about a princess and a bridge column in a tunnel in Paris (I made the last one up by the way). Why do I mention this preposterous story? Well Melanie Philips; Peter Oborne; Richard Littlejohn, and some prat no-ones ever heard of on the Torygraph blogs are saying that this [Anglican] godbloke; who has made republican comments as well - should be sacked as technically the Queen is a sort of his boss (what about God?? Is she like the Department manager and he's the MD or something?), and he swore an oath of allegiance to her, so technically he has committed the ecclesiastical equivalent of slagging his boss off online. This is all interspersed with how republicans are just a bunch of mean minded; disloyal killjoys, blah blah -who should just shut their faces. So much for the ostensibly libertarian Torygraph, yeah free speech if you sing to the right songsheet more like.

It's not the unedifying and slightly weird "reverential" forelock tugging that seems to be going on with some of the conservative commentators response to our royal betters tieing the knot, that bugs me about this story, though I do hear "get a fucking grip it's 2010 for gawds sake!" screaming in my mind with some of the coverage this weddings getting. No it's how they are reacting to an institution [The C of E ] they supposedly revere as an essential part of our "Judeo Christian bedrock values". In case they haven't noticed the C of E is dying on its arse a bit at the moment. The guys comments were a bit in bad taste yeah, but come on! The C of E is losing followers. Joe public loses interest with stuff like this. It's trivial. It really highlights the bubble some of these people are in in regards to the role of the Anglican church in regards to modern Britain. It is almost pitiable to see these guys getting worked up at the "harm" this is doing to the church. Yeah it causes harm, it shows how out of touch it is, getting worked up about it. People won't want to know. Kick this bloke out! Yeah it's not like the C of E is having staffing crises is it? Do get a grip.

And on a final note. As I said his comments were a bit of a case of republican sour grapes. But I know that some of the homophobic comments from that same institution are a lot worse, and are directed at people who don't have the material trappings of bishop Petes targets either. I wonder why these commentators (I'll let Oborne off the hook) don't get half as worked up about that sort of sentiment?

Do Some Conservatives Secretly Admire the Chinese Dictatorship?

I ask this question because there are several conservative commentators who have what could be best described as an "ambiguous" attitude to the communist regime in China. They are always keen to emphasise that a democratic China is little more than an idealists pipe dream, that other nations highlighting the shortcomings of their governments human rights record is a futile venture, and that the Communist party just refuse to listen to any criticism (well they do have a lot to lose.). So the shortfall is don't bother -China will never be free, ever. Peter Hitchens has proclaimed loftily, presumably asking all 1.3 billion of them; that "China will never be free and has no intention of being so" Andrew Alexander has these similar sentiments also. But it is this article by Jeremy Warner, the Telegraphs deputy editor that exemplifies this kind of thing to a tee, and it also highlights another aspect to this kind of thing which gives us the ambiguity in some conservative pundits attitude to this regime.

"Why is it that the BBC, in its reporting of David Cameron’s visit to China, keeps banging on about the supposed dilemma faced by the Prime Minister over whether to raise human rights abuse, and in particular the plight of Liu Xiaobo, a prominent Chinese dissident unable to collect his Nobel peace prize because he’s serving an 11 year sentence in a Chinese jail?

There’s no dilemma here at all – except in the vague terms already referred to by Mr Cameron, this is not an issue which needs to be explored at all on a visit which is meant to be wholly about trade. Only the BBC, would, in oblivious disregard for the national interest, keep on trying to make something out of it."

Yes on technical terms it is not a visit to do with promoting democratic reform. But Cameron is a head of state of a major developed nation that supposedly prides itself on liberal democracy. Will the PM comment on this high profile dissident, and the contentious issue of China's human rights record, a country the UK wants to do trade with? It may not be directly relevant, but that doesn't make it a valid question.

He sticks in a bit of that horrible cultural relativism about the "suitability of liberal democracy" on non Westerners that all but says "they don't do democracy, their brains are wired up different"

"but to attempt to judge China by contemporary Western standards is neither helpful nor justified."

"China has always put ideas of the collective good above those of individual liberty, and is therefore from an entirely different cultural tradition to that of Thomas Paine, the French revolutionaries, and the rights of man. Attempts to impose Western models and ideals on the Chinese political class are therefore not just futile, they are are culturally insulting."

Jeremy I take my hat off to you. Defending the conduct despots seldom gets more imaginative than that.

"Neither the US nor the British government would take kindly to being told by the Chinese how to manage their internal, or even external, affairs; "

No I don't suppose they would. I don't think the leaders of Apartheid South Africa did, or the leaders of the USSR did. I'm sure pretty much any government doesn't appreciate criticism no matter how justified. That doesn't mean that logically you shouldn't criticise anyway. I'm not naive enough to believe that the Chinese will just give everyone the vote if we ask them nicely, and that external criticism would only be really effective if there is the right internal mechanisms to elicit change as well. But external criticism has its uses.

The remainder of the article changes tack somewhat, and this is where the ambiguity to the regime is most evident. Is the authoritarianism and disdain for individual holistic human rights (especially minority rights) at the expense of a monolithic hegemonic society, on some level appealing to some of these commentators? That these chauvinistic powers can dispense with the more "ninnyish" and self critical aspects of a liberal democracy? Does this explain:

"You don’t need to go far back in Western history to find similarly intolerant attitudes to political opposition, and as for the human rights agenda, well that’s a very recent addition indeed. The human rights industry really only started to gain traction from the 1970s onwards. Only in very recent years have human rights activists managed to subvert the law to this overarching end. Looking at a system which now demands that candles are provided for pagans practicing their dark arts at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and other such nonsenses, you can understand why the Chinese want none of it."

He actually begins to turn up the tempo even more in this bizarre passage:

"I’m not seriously arguing against western libertarianism, but some might think, looking at the country’s relative lack of crime, that the Chinese system has much to commend it. The most important thing to understand about modern China, one eminent expert once told me, is that all actions of policy, justice and administration are wholly focused on just one goal – maintaining the Communist Party elite in power.

This gives the system a strange kind of democratic accountability

Yeah it's strange in being undemocratically democratic. I wonder which way Liu Xiaobo cast his vote???

"As long as the CP keeps delivering, it will continue to command popular support and is therefore safe. Officials know that the moment they fail, their end will by nasty, brutish and short. For the moment, there is little if any appetite in China for Tiananmen Square type protest. The Chinese are too busy trying to get rich to worry about human rights."

Sentiments which can only be expressed in that way that only writers making excuses for a police state a few thousand miles away from the comfort of their office in the free world, can manage.

A Tale of Two Telegraph Blogs

As sure as night follows day, whenever Maggie Thatcher falls ill, and some lefty columnist somewhere has harsh words about the day of her demise, there will be inevitably a column from a right wing pundit in the Mail or the Telegraph explaining how this gloating over the death of a frail old lady is cast iron proof that every left winger is a Stalinist / communist / secretly a genocidal maniac in the making. This time this trope has come from the Telegraph blogger Ed West. He argues that this kind of thing is down to the left and the progressive minded viewing all conservatives and people on the right as inherently evil. Whilst their side merely view the other side as misguided and ignorant, hence the reason why [he thinks] the right has moral and intellectual superiority, and would never stoop to gloating over the deaths of - say Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, even though a comment on the article says that they would gloat, and a letter to the Mail saying they would relish the death of the former.

It was with this in mind that I stumbled upon this piece by Tom Chivers a Telegraph guy who writes sciencey articles on his blog on their [Telegraphs] website, he appears not to be very right wing at all, and writes about the virtual incitement to homophobic violence that resulted in the headline in the Ugandan newspaper that is pictured above. Chivers is understandably appalled at the headline comparing it as a more extreme version of the News of the World "name and shame" headline a decade ago. In this case far; far worse, the NOTW article at least covered child sex offenders (I'm not saying that the article was anything but a reckless attempt to incite violence btw.) I would have thought that something like this may have proved Wests theory. A substantial number of comments to the Telegraph blogs are pretty right wing (putting it mildly!) after all. They aren't really going to be big on gay rights and the whole homosexual scene, but surely even they would have sympathy for the plight of people who will likely end up being the victims of mob violence? Surely this will prove Ed's point that these right wing guys will wear their nobility on their sleeves? Er.. no. Quite a substantial minority of them are either indifferent to those "outed", or even say that they deserve what they get. For Gods sake, I mean how much of a c**t do you have to be to so divorced from any sense of basic human decency in regards to people who will likely be lynched because of being outed like this. To give Tom Chivers credit he argues this very point with these people, and does a good job of the straw men they try to place at him (you know the "you wouldn't say this if it was Muslims doing it.." spiel). I ended up feeling sorry for him, a nice guy having to write for arseholes. The earliest comments on this article really do make you question human nature sometimes.

I don't think this is a glowing vindication for Ed Wests theory. I do think that those on the left who do do all this "piss on Thatchers grave" really do make a rod for their own backs (I wonder how many really will do it when the time comes?) when right wing columnists use this to demonstrate to their audience how horrible these "ungrateful socialists are". But let us remember that Thatcher was the prime minister of this country, and an awful lot of people paid a very heavy price on the alter of her "convictions". It isn't surprising many people loathe her. We might say that Richard Littlejohn is subject to pretty venomous abuse on - say; Mailwatch, but he earns a fortune spreading poisonous lies about vulnerable groups, so it isn't too surprising that those on the left won't like him too much. But what struck me about this story was that the people being attacked weren't leaders or newspaper columnist, but were powerless individuals in fear of their lives. And that I feel is an important distinction. Leftys can say stupid and unkind stuff, but this kind of kicking those vulnerable targets and the sheer inhumanity of some of the callousness written, seems a forte of the more right wing commentator, and I'm sad to say it is a pretty common theme on those kind of blogging sights.

Gerald Warner Straw Mans Richard Dawkins.

Gerald Warner is a bit of an odd cove. A Telegraph blogger, he's one of the most crustiest old reactionaries I've ever heard of. He's so staggeringly; curmudgeonly old fashioned, he could seriously make professional fuddy duddy, Roger Scruton look like an eligible contender to present the next series of "Pimp My Ride". His blog is therefore excellent fodder for on line car crash entertainment. A taster of which can be this entry, which throws a series of attacks at Richard Dawkins for being the godawful militant atheist scoundrel that he is. It is a series of unfocused criticisms of [Dawkins] wanting the Pope to be arrested, to his documentary on faith schools that's going out on More4 this Wednesday. The entire article has so many straw men in it, it begins to resemble a Worzal Gummage themed fancy dress party. So we get stuff like this:

"Dawkins calls on us rather a lot, which might seem a touch inconsistent in a man who has said: “People can believe what they want, but I wish they would leave the rest of us alone.""

No one is under duress to listen (let alone abide by) to what he has to say. I don't think the same can be said about some of the major religions (obviously with varying degrees of intensity.) in the past, and indeed the present.

"Dawkins argues in his programme that religious schools encourage social segregation. So do public schools, such as Oundle, his alma mater; Oxford colleges such as Balliol where he was educated or New College where he was a fellow; and just about every institution that promotes excellence or within which people freely associate. Does he regard them as a menace too?"

I suppose they do practice a form of segregation on the grounds of wealth and exam results. Oxford in principle is open to anyone who has the intelligence to meet the entry requirements. I don't think it can really be accused of encouraging social segregation (though there is likely an atmosphere of idiosyncratic donnish eccentricity about the place, that outsiders may find odd.) . The dangers of religious schools come from the fact that they widen and compound the fractuous gaps that the already highly mutually exclusive religions import on our society. They also impose their subjective values as "truth" on small kids, rather than giving a broad education which encourages varying viewpoints and critical thinking, two of the best gifts a child can receive, and that is why I personally dislike faith schools so much. When we hear that 95 percent of kids in the harmonious paradise of Northern Ireland who attend segregated schools, of which 68 percent of 18-25 years old never meet the "other side" at all! (No really!) Then we have insider reports of schoolkids at a Muslim school being taught that Jews are monkeys! yeah we must conclude that there are reasons to consider them a menace to social harmony, and thus in a different league to the "dangers" going to a public school.

Faith school children just freely associated themselves into their schools! Come off it Gerald.

"Despite his attempts to deconstruct established religions, Dawkins does not bring the same relentless empiricism to bear on superstitions which he himself embraces"

Oh it's this argument again. Dawkins bad for bashing "your" superstition. But you bash his "superstition" and that's good. So you're attacking him for his embrace of the very evil (a "faith" position) that you yourself are defending, as it is only evil if it is someone elses one.

Genius. I'm sure man made climate change won't get mentioned in the next sentence.

"such as man-made global warming:"

Original aren't they?

"he has even recommended Al Gore’s notoriously discredited film on the subject."
Who discredited it? It's supposed errors were cross examined by a court. They found no evidence for iffy research.

"He also supports the Great Ape Project, which seeks to extend moral and legal rights to great apes."

If only there was some chemical compound in the cells of animals that was like a record of the ancestry of different species that could link mankind to chimps and gorillas.

"Dawkins carries his reductionism and scientism to lengths of intolerance that dismay even some of his admirers. When the Oxford theologian Alister McGrath accused him of being ignorant of Christian theology, Dawkins asked, with classic academic rigour, “do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns”?

This is such a silly argument, my eyeballs fall out of my head whenever I hear it. Christian theology and the existence of God are two completely different issues. This is no different to someone arguing that you can't say the Force is made up because you've only seen the Star Wars films and haven't read George Lucas's biography, every star Wars novel and every single Wookiepedia article.

"So, would he debate Marxism with Eric Hobsbawm without having read a word of Marx."

Dawkins isn't into splitting hairs on the finer points of theology. He's concerned about the case for the existence of God, and the truthful merits of the major faiths. The two are almost totally mutually exclusive

Stuff like this makes me think that the God /no God question is literally an exercise in banging your head on a brick wall, preferably a wailing one.

Ed West Misses the Point

I've suddenly started taking to having a moochies on the Telegraph websites blogs. Don't ask me why, curious morbidity probably. It's all a bit depressing on there really (God help us if we really do all become more right wing as we're older. Cause I don't wanna go there!) But I did come across this piece by Ed West, who is not last years winner of "Person who's name sounds a lot like the most like a famous serial killer, and could be used as a tribute act.", but a blogger on that site. His entry is 0n comments by Michael Gove (Education Secretary) about being receptive to every ones favourite God hater; Richard Dawkins - idea to set up a "free thinking" school, in response to government plans to allow groups to set up their own schools with tax payers money. The article says that he wants to set up "atheist" schools, to which the following rebuttal is issued.

"“I would prefer to call it a free-thinking free school,” he said.

"I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion.

“Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded."

There is little for me to disagree with there. One of the greatest gifts we can imbue kids with is the ability to think for themselves. To think critically and open mindedly, with a sense of independence of spirit. Youngsters have a way of looking at things, that adults sometimes lose. It must be nurtured. It is fucking criminal in my mind for kids, who are browbeaten into unquestioning compliance, their independent spirit treated as "youthful impertinence". To be hamstrung or strong armed into being taught to "think" on only the terms of what "tradition" or "religion" or "the wisdom of the elders". To swallow whole, at face value; gold standard truth, a load of opinions of other people. This educational reform would be beneficial in perhaps nurturing that independent spirit. However it is just as likely that religious groups will seize on it too, and when we learn that school texts are teaching "AIDS is the wages of sin" as truth, and that Jews are "monkeys", we must ask at what price to kids education, are better whack in ofstead league tables worth?

It seems that West (pretty right wing guy) agrees. It's sometimes good when someone from the other side of the fence has a view you hold, you see how a mutual view can form from quite different origins, expanding your philosophical scope a bit. So kudos for this:

" Once again Michael Gove proves himself to be the best classical liberal in the Government by saying he would be interested in athiest, free schools. These “free-thinking schools” – as Professor Richard Dawkins said when he suggested the idea last month, they wouldn’t indoctrinate children with atheism, just teach them to think for themselves – are in the finest tradition of liberal thought.

It could also be good news for the 20,000 or so church schools in England, since one of the main causes of resentment among parents is that often the only decent state secondary schools in their area are Catholic or Anglican, and they’re neither."

Great stuff. Although people may come from different parts of the political spectrum, it's good to see a broad support for the intellectual autonomy of youngsters. However at this point, things start to go wrong. In fact I knew they would in an article written by a conservative, with the words "Marxist indoctrination." This means it's a muck slinging article, about horrid old liberal elites being worser than Pol Pot, and taking over the universe. Marxist has become such an overused buzz word in right wing polemic, it's become an equivalent to the overuse of fascist, that George Orwell complained about. It really has lost any real meaning, just makes liberals sound a bit evil. So we get this.

"But if the New Atheists can set up a school free of religious indoctrination, can I set one up free of Marxist indoctrination, which in my experience is being far more successfully force-fed into young minds, and is a far greater menace to society?"

Religious indoctrination ain't THAT big a deal after all. I seem to have missed the rising up of the proletarian collective as well.

Yeah, education through any form of indoctrination is bad. Or is it?

"Can I set a history syllabus that focuses primarily on English history and our island story, and is told with a heroic narrative that glories in British success? Can I not have a history course entirely devoted to trans-Atlantic slavery and Nazi Germany? Can I not mention Mary Seacole since, from a purely objective point of view, she’s not even in the top 10,000 list of significant British figures?

In geography can I leave out the module about human development that teaches an entirely Marxist view of the theory of racism? Or the continually driven-home idea that the Third World’s problems are due to free trade and the West, not political corruption?
In English can we leave out the trendy patois poetry until we have mastered the classics of English poetry and literature, and not teach children that all art should be valued equally because, in fact, some art is rubbish?

There’ll be no diversity lectures, no sinister “race equality awards”, no “sex and human relationships” – it is up to parents to teach children the rights and wrongs of sexuality, rather than the biology – and no earth-worship. Teachers won’t be expected to replace parents and priests as state-appointed role models, and so all sorts of drunks, weirdos and social deviants will be allowed to work there."

Oh be open minded and free thinking, but only if it's on my terms. Bloody hypocrite. I've always suspected that some of the people who expend thousands of words on the pinko conspiracy at the heart of the BBC would soon shut up if they started putting out a right wing slant. If it's your opinions being put out, that seems fine. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

That's the problem I have with this article. I don't think there is some great Marxist agenda being taught. If their was it'd be totally out of order. Children should be allowed to think for themselves. This guy seems to think that it's only bad if it's not your ideology being taught. Missing the point. It should be a broad education, not a socialist, a monetarist, a postmodern, a Sunni, an Asda or a "The Gospel According to Chris Moyles" themed education. Let kids see the all the evidence for themselves to make their own minds up about Britain's role in history (I actually think they would come away pretty proud of it. Most teenagers are usually pretty patriotic anyway.) or the cause of third world poverty. They aren't stupid, and giving them the resources to see all the evidence for themselves, and a well rounded education, is as I said one of the most precious gifts they can obtain.

James Delingpole Makes Stuff Up.

I was having a quick browse through Johann Hari's articles archive to see if he had some more posted up, when I found this short rebuke towards a Spectator article penned by the right wing polemic James Delingpole, who describes himself as "right on everything." Hmmm. This article is unusual for him in that it isn't an almost obsessive tract on "how climate change is just made up by communists to steal middle class peoples cash.", which for about 95% of what he writes. (It's ironic that climate change deniers like Delingpole always say "warmists" are obsessed and zealous about CC, when they themselves never bloody shut up about how it's a con.) Indeed it got him and the Telegraph in well deserved hot water, when he stupidly, and in my opinion, deliberately splashed the address of a man who wrote a letter that took a Tory candidate to task for the contradiction of Cameran being pro green, whilst the party seemed anti. (Story and letter sent here.) It was a moderate letter, but Delingpole said he was a "eco fascist" and inevitably some of the (ahem more "passionate" CC deniers) followers of his stuff got this guys address e mail and picture of his house published online, where it remained on the Telegraphs site for 20 hours. I wonder who the real CC fanatics really are sometimes? No, the article; entitled "Most gay men have realised that the Oppressed Victimhood party is totally over" is about how "playing the gay victim card" doesn't carry as much weight as it used to. I think it's in response to a survey on homophobia increasing/decreasing. I don't know in which context he is writing about. He is a terrible writer. Like most of Delingpoles writing it is loopily right wing, overblown and full of shitty pretentious metaphors, and name dropping philosophers to make you look better read. The stuff that only bad writers who are trying to look cleverer than they really are use. But it also exemplifies the casual nastiness that drips through pretty much all he writes. Stuff like this.

"Some of my best friends are gay — but now I can go one better than that: one of them is HIV positive. ‘But that’s brilliant news!’ I told my friend when he spilled the beans the other day. ‘Now I can go round claiming victim cred by association. And if anyone makes an Aids joke I can be, like, seriously offended and put on a solemn voice and say: “Actually, you know, if you had an HIV positive friend like I do...”.’

My friend agreed that being HIV positive was a very handy thing to be, in this respect. But on further consideration, we decided it would have carried more victim cred weight in the days before anti-retroviral drugs when a) it was a death sentence; and b) being gay won you many more oppressed-minority brownie points."

Yeah I mean HIV ain't that a big deal. Is James Delingpole the only man on Earth who could use the news that someone close to him was terminally ill, as an anti -PC tract.

Twat.

Normally I wouldn't comment on stuff that Delingpole writes. It really speaks for itself. But for two things I will. Firstly Delingpole has never read any of Johann Haris work when he writes.

"And obviously, there’s no hope whatsoever for the impossible Johann Hari who, even as the wall is pushed on top of him, will be squealing with his last breath that it’s all the fault of Western imperialism and white heterosexist Islamophobia. Generally, though, I think even the most obtuse homosexual male has realised that the Oppressed Victimhood party is, like, so totally over."

Hari, in typical style gave this robust rebuttal.

"I found this slightly odd, since I am so critical of Islamic fundamentalists that I have received a substantial number of death threats from them. I worked undercover at the Finsbury Park mosque after 9/11 to expose Islamists; I have debunked Hizb ut Tahrir as a bunch of theocratic fascists on live television; and after I wrote an article criticising the 'Prophet' Mohammed for having sex with a pre-pubescent girl when he was 53 years old, there was a three-day riot by over 3000 people in Calcutta calling for me to be imprisoned or killed. At no point did I blame "Islamophobia" for this lunatic behaviour. On the contrary: I was highly critical of the people who put this case."

Say what you will about Hari, he can't be considered some apologist for militant Islam. Any cursory check of his anti-religious articles will confirm all what he says in his rebuttal. It is also not taking into account how he bravely, was not swayed into self censorship vis a vis the Calcutta riots here. It is barmy to say he makes excuses for Islamic fundamentals.

Secondly, like many of these sorts of articles, it belittles genuine efforts to curb prejudice and inequality as "victim politics" and "bolshy minorities." It is also peppered with homosexual innuendo and blanket stereotyping.

" If I were gay, I think I’d feel a bit miffed about this. It would be a bit like having your Uniqlo 20 per cent press discount card withdrawn or being told that now your favourite club’s under new management you can no longer jump to the front of the queue. But I’m afraid homosexuals are going to have to get over it in much the same way Jews have had to get over it."

"In an odd way, though, I think this process has done both Jews and homosexuals the power of good. Obviously, I deplore the way they are persecuted, but you only have to look at how the cult of victimhood has sapped the strength of so many ‘ethnic communities’ in guilt-ridden Western cultures to realise that, actually, playing the oppressed minority card is ultimately self-destructive."

"if there’s one thing that ever makes me want to vote BNP, it’s when I hear a black person playing the race card or a Muslim talking about Islamophobia."

He ups the ante by claiming that these guys should really "put up and shut up", as many a defender of bullying and discrimination have proclaimed.

"Of course, I understand why these people do it. It’s a tough, competitive world and if pleading victimhood can give you that extra edge, well, why not? Also, let’s be honest, it can be tremendously good fun working oneself up into a lather of indignation over some perceived slight — and what is more satisfying than doing so on behalf not merely of yourself, but of the entire black/gay/Jewish/disabled/female/Muslim ‘community’?"

The problem is that when you play this game, you are not only undermining your own cause — think, for example, of how much funnier black comedians are when they don’t project guilt-trip vibes about their skin colour: Chris Rock, say, or Reginald D. Hunter — but you are also contributing to the moral and intellectual degeneracy of the broader culture. You are endorsing a bizarre, sick value system which rewards people not for their strengths but for how useless and feeble and needy and bitter they can prove themselves to be."

The real problem I have with this kind of thing is that it shows no insight into how better rights for minorities came about (it also implausibly implies that they are "better off" than the mainstream. Handy to dismiss them as pampered ingrates.), or even that discrimination exists at all. Whenever I hear this kind of sentiment (and it is common in right wing memes) I have to ask do these people think that anti discrimination just came out of the blue. No it didn't. The suffragettes, Martin Luther King, and the footage from Hitlers camps shocked people into their plight, and caused a change in attitude towards minorities. The mainstream sometimes weren't aware of their plight, so there was little incentive to change this. If these people did as Delingpole asked and kept "quiet", then women would still be waiting for votes that would never come to them. Gays would be breaking the law by having a relationship straight people would take for granted. I'm sure some do use "the victimhood card" for their own personal gain. But it is a small price for society being shocked into improving treatment of minorities. If they had not been so vocal in calling for them, they would never have got them, because no-one else would have done it for them. Is this perhaps the root of some of the harder rights distaste of the "bolshys", it forces them to see a discriminatory aspect of society that they don't want to see, and would rather ignore.