Great Moments in Stupidity

February 14, 2014

The internet’s total stupidity and arrogance index dipped a notch the other day with James Delingpole’s final blog column for the Telegraph.

Scurrilous and unkind rumors have it that Delingpole was becoming a liability and embarassment to the owners, and so got the boot.
Readers of this blog will remember Jame’s indelible performance in the video above, totally flummoxed by a simple question from Sir Paul Nurse, about trusting, or not trusting, the scientific method.

Although known for some of the nastiest, most hateful, and not surprisingly, most ill informed climate denial screeds in Trollville, Delingpole took an opportunity to remind his readers, in this last post, that he’s actually, well, as the clip above underlines, grossly ignorant.

“..Thanks for your technical expertise and advice (it prevented anyone ever noticing that I’m an English graduate and know NOTHING about science..”

…making him of course, eminently qualified in his field.

122 Responses to “Great Moments in Stupidity”


  1. I wonder if people were still reading Delingpole’s posts. If Forbes were to stop publishing Peter Ferrara’s climate science opinions that would be another signal that the vacuity of ideology is struggling for relevance.

  2. daveburton Says:

    News today is that James Delingpole, formerly of the Daily Telegraph, and Raheem Kassam, from TrendingCentral.com, will lead the new “Breitbart London.”

    • omnologos Says:

      Delingpole is a fellow but professional provoker, knowing perfectly well the kind of people who’ll feel provoked (hence the ‘right about everything’).

      It’s kind of fun and sad to read therefore all the bile spouted by the unaware. Pity the provoked.

      Ps English major? Chris Mooney of course

    • greenman3610 Says:

      does that mean they’ll be hobnobbing with White Supremacists over there, too?
      http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/old-photos-surface-showing-breitbart-o

      • kanspaugh Says:

        Hopefully Delingpole will join Breitbart in his ULTIMATE location. Think fire and brimstone . . .

        • dumboldguy Says:

          It won’t be soon enough. Perhaps a sinkhole will open under the Heartland Institute and take the entire place there also. (Your handle reminded me of a certain letter I referenced on another thread)

        • omnologos Says:

          This is an interesting development in the discussion.

          It appears that the inhumane aspect of warmism is closely linked to rabid leftism, of the sort that celebrated Breitbart’s early death (never mind the four children).

          Am not sure how this could contribute positively to the leftist and/or warmist cause.

          It seems actually plenty of fodder to anybody willing to convince the public that the people who whish Breitbart and Delingpole dead, will be the same people who will wish others dead as well, if and when there is a disagreement on any topic. Idi Amin would be proud.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            An interesting development in the discussion, indeed. At least for someone like you who has a warped understanding of the meaning of “humane” and throws off words like “warmism” and “rabid leftism” so mindlessly.

            When I was a child, we wished death on “Japs” and Krauts”, then later on Stalin and assorted other despots and villains like Pol Pot and Idi Amin. The fool in Korea is now on the top of the “wish he was dead” list. That is perhaps “inhumane” to some warped folks, but certainly “human” for people with concern for the greater good. No one wanted to see Breitbart’s children left fatherless, and it’s unfortunate that’s a consequence of his passing, but the world is likely a better place without him, considering the evil he did while he was here (and which is still being carried out in his name and memory).

            And “….wish others dead as well, if and when there is a disagreement on ANY topic”. Hyperbole lives on in the “mind” of O-Log. Idi Amin would be proud of O-Log and not “us” actually, because such mindlessness is exactly what allows “those who deserve to die” to seize power and wreak havoc..

            (And remember, O-Log, all the inhumane rabid warmist leftists have let YOU live)

          • omnologos Says:

            No need to add more details d-o-guy, I understand perfectly well that you see no difference in battling foreign dictatorships in a global war and fellow citizens who think differently from you in a democracy.

            You’ll be happy to know that the only people that feel happiness when a political opponent dies are the likes of Adolf and Idi and the Kims and Josef and Pol Pot and and and. And you 😉

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Ah, yes—-O-Log confirms my diagnosis of “mindlessness” by AGAIN missing the point and making great leaps of faulty logic before our eyes. At least I don’t have to ask “WHAT?”, this time, because O-Log HAS spoken clearly enough (for a change) that we can see his confusion. To wit:

            He has somehow confused “villains and despots” with “fellow citizens who think differently from you in a democracy”, just as he has called Adolf and Idi and the Kims and Josef and Pol Pot “political opponents” rather than beasts that all right-thinking folks SHOULD wish dead. Does he not know that those five alone were responsible for the deaths of probably more than 100 million people?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS The stuttering “and.and.and” at the end is no longer cute, O-Log. You had your short moment in the sun with the minimally clever “overexposure” schtick. Try to concentrate on communicating clearly to us.

            PPS We should add Mussolini to the list of those who deserved to die. I’m sure all those Abbysinians

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS The stuttering “and.and.and” at the end is no longer cute, O-Log. You had your short moment in the sun with the minimally clever “overexposure” schtick. Try to concentrate on communicating your ideas clearly to us. You have little talent for “clever”.

            PPS We should add Mussolini to the list of those who deserved to die. I’m sure the descendants of all those Abyssinians that he slaughtered would agree. While we’re in Italy, how about them slaughtering Romans? And the Catholic Church with all them crusades, inquisitions, and burnings-at-the-stake? What do you think about Mussolini?—-are you a neo-fascist who loves him? (at least he made sure the trains ran on time)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Sorry about the partial duplicate post—-don’t know how that happened ????

          • vierotchka Says:

            I agree with you. The only feelings I get from the deaths of murderous dictators are feelings of relief, not even feelings of justice because justice never was served.

          • daveburton Says:

            It’s not so interesting, omnologos. It is commonplace, these days, for people on the Left to be so full of hatred and rage that, like kanspaugh and dumboldguy, they wish for those with whom they disagree to die and go to hell. Remember Phil Jones telling his friend, Michael Mann, the “cheering news” that John Daly had died?

            Once upon a time there were a lot of good-hearted, gentle, “bleeding-heart liberals.” Even when they were wrong, they weren’t Bad. They were people who a conservative Christian could like and respect, even when we disagreed.

            But that was a long time ago. Those nice liberals are mostly gone, now. Since killing inconvenient unborn babies has become a holy sacrament for liberalism, most people on the Left have hearts of stone.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            This needs no reply. Another one for the “Dave Burton All-Time Hits” album. Lord love a duck!

          • vierotchka Says:

            Your post is so full of mendacious and smelly excreta bovines… but the last bit takes the biscuit in that department.

            You wrote “Since killing inconvenient unborn babies has become a holy sacrament for liberalism, most people on the Left have hearts of stone.”

            Firstly, abortion does not kill babies any more than it kills toddlers, children, teenagers, adults and old-age pensioners. It terminates embryos and fetuses. Secondly, it is not a holy sacrament for anyone – many people, from both Right and Left, are not “pro-abortion”, they are pro-choice (that’s a HUGE difference), meaning that even if they don’t approve of abortion per say, they think it is up to the woman to make such a choice (and if YOU are against abortions, then don’t have any). Finally, most people on the Left do not have hearts of stone. It is the bigoted “pro-lifers” for whom life is sacred only until the moment of birth but have nothing against slaughtering or maiming millions of babies, women and children in America’s constant wars around the globe. In fact, these “pro-lifers” are basically against abortion because they need cannon fodder to send to all those wars. Furthermore, the same “pro-lifers” not only are for capital punishment, they get cheap thrills and orgasms each time someone gets executed. They are the people on the Right, it is they who have hearts of stone.

          • daveburton Says:

            Why do I call abortion a “holy sacrament of liberalism?” Because, these days, if you going to call yourself a liberal, you are very strongly expected to support elective abortion, just as if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you are very strongly expected to participate in Christian sacraments such as baptism, Eucharist, etc.

            If you oppose abortion you can’t really call yourself a liberal, just as if you oppose the sacraments of baptism & communion you can’t really call yourself a Christian.

            Support for killing innocent, unborn babies is an essential tenet of the faith of modern liberalism. If your heart aches at the thought of an innocent unborn child being dismembered in the womb, you aren’t a liberal.

            vierotchka, you accuse pro-lifers of not caring about babies after they’re born. But I think you must surely know that’s the opposite of the truth. Walk into any pro-life crisis pregnancy center, and ask them about assistance for mothers after their babies are born, and you’ll find that they all have connections with ministries that provide that help. But walk into any Planned Parenthood office and ask that question, and they have nothing to offer, other than perhaps a suggestion to apply for AFDC/TANF and other government assistance.

            vierotchka, you say, “abortion does not kill babies,” as if unborn babies either are not human, or not alive. But this is a science blog, that is a defiantly anti-scientific assertion. You might as well deny the law of gravity, as to deny that an unborn baby is a baby.

            I’m sure you know it’s untrue, at least sometimes. How about, the next time an expectant friend shows you the ultrasound of her unborn son, you try telling her that her child is not a baby. Or if she tells you her baby just kicked, try telling her that’s just an “embryo or fetus, not a baby.” See how that works out.

            Or if she comes to you, red-eyed from crying, and tells you that she lost her baby, will you correct her, and tell her that her miscarriage was just the termination of an embryo or fetus? Surely you have more sense than that!

            Who do you think is sucking his thumb here?

            About 18 days after conception, the baby’s heart starts beating.

            43 days after conception the baby’s brainwaves are detectable.

            By the 8th week the brain and all body systems are present, and the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.

            By the 9th week he has his own unique finger prints.

            By the 11th week he is sensitive to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working.

            If y’all have hardened your hearts so much that you have no regard for whether such a child lives or dies, it’s no wonder you, kanspaugh & dumboldguy could tell Andrew Breitbart’s friends, children & widow, “the world is likely a better place without him.”

            That sentiment sounds a lot like a famous literary character, who said, “If [the poor and destitute] would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” In other words, the world is likely a better place without them.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Dave asks, “Why do I call abortion a “holy sacrament of liberalism?”.

            The answer is obvious—because he is a dishonest, christian fundamentalist, conservative, climate change denialist troll that earns his keep by throwing off-topic and irrelevant right wing propaganda and horsepucky against the wall.

            Dave sets up false analogies of “strong expectations of support” for this and that and tries to make things mutually exclusive. Dave says, “If you oppose abortion you can’t really call yourself a liberal”. I say TOTAL BS, Dave.

            I am a “liberal” by your standards and I oppose abortion. My education in biology and embryology has taught me that any living thing that results from the fertilization of an egg is already “that thing” in the ontological sense—it’s merely a matter of time before it develops to a level where it is self-sustaining. I respect life in all forms just because it is alive—I no longer hunt and release the fish I catch, and even try not to “squash bugs” if I can. I await evidence of a soul that needs saving in any living thing, however.

            Dave goes into an unnecessary heart-rending rant about the stages of human development, leading up to “babies” a la Gerber labels—aren’t they cute, etc.

            All of that is beside the point. The point is that some people choose to ignore the biology of human development and choose to abort human embryos and fetuses. Can Dave show us some figures that indicate more “liberals” do that than “conservatives”? I can show him figures that illustrate how many more vicious conservatives are in favor of the death penalty, callously allowing poor children to starve, gleefully destroying the environment in the name of profit, and causing the deaths of “innocents” of all ages with their “oil and exploitation wars”. Vierotchka is correct—Dave and his ilk do NOT care about what happens to “babies” after they are born.

            To me, abortion is the very worst form of birth control, and I find it interesting that Dave brings up Planned Parenthood, which devotes 95% of its efforts to stopping unwanted pregnancies, and is therefore a FAR more important ANTI abortion force than the ignorant bible-thumpers who would quote scripture and merely say “abstain”. But Dave is a hypocrite, so I guess it can be expected that he would spout hypocrisy here. (I AM glad he didn’t mention Al Gore though).

            Dave is correct that this is a science blog, so I will end here even though I could go on talking for hours about the “religion” and “politics” that Dave has inserted here. The whole thing is simple, Dave. You and your misguided brethren want to set yourselves up as the judges of right and wrong and tell other people how to behave. You would deny them the freedom to make choices and reserve that to yourselves. Typical conservative BS. Mind your own business—their choices are between them and their consciences—-I may not approve of abortion either, but I DO understand that simple fact.

          • vierotchka Says:

            Excreta bovines. By the same token, then, abortions kill unborn toddlers, unborn children, unborn teenagers, unborn adults and unborn old-age pensioners.

            Until the moment of birth, it is a fetus after having been an embryo.

            Your hysterical rant is childish and ignorant.

            If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.

      • daveburton Says:

        Peter, that’s a below-the-belt hit piece. I’m sure that Mr. David Neiwert knows perfectly well that it is common at conferences for random strangers to approach speakers and other celebrities and and ask them to pose for photos. There’s no evidence that Breitbart had any clue that he was posing for a snapshot with a Jewish Neo-NAZI crackpot. Nothing that either Breitbart or O’Keefe has ever done or said suggests that they ever had any sympathy for NAZIs or Klansman or racial supremacists.

        If Neiwert wants to bash dead political activists over matters of race, why doesn’t he do a story about Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who was a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter & chapter leader (“Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops”), who filibustered against the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, and who once called African American servicemen “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Byrd was elected by his fellow Democrat Senators to President pro tempore of the United States Senate, which is the 2nd highest-ranking position in the Senate, and 3rd in line of succession to the Presidency, after the Vice-President and the Speaker of the House. He served in that position until his death, June 28, 2010.

        Of course we both know why Neiwert won’t do that. It’s because Robert Byrd was a lifelong Democrat.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          CLASSIC, CLASSIC Dave Burton BS. This is one for the all time favorites list.
          Some low level whining followed by conservative wing-nut railing against Robert Byrd?.

          WHAT ABOUT WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON? THEY OWNED SLAVES! (but Byrd didn’t)

          Dave, have YOU had your picture taken with any “Jewish Neo-NAZI crackpots” or only climate denial crackpots like John Droz? Is there any evidence that Breitbart did NOT know who he was posing with—he looks like he knew the guy.

          And considering the mission of destruction that O’Keefe carried out for Breitbart, it is quite easy to say that he has sympathy for NAZIs or Klansman or racial supremacists—they would all approve of the results.

          Dave’s copied from somewhere “civics lesson” neglects mentioning the distinction between president pro tempore and president pro tempore emeritus, or the actual time lines with Byrd, but that is to be expected from a “looker upper” who has wandered into an area he knows little about.

          And the patented crushing closing comment from Dave—-“Of course we both know why Neiwert won’t do that. It’s because Robert Byrd was a lifelong Democrat” DUH!

          This whole post of Dave’s is actually “below the belt”—pulled from a portion of Dave’s anatomy that is below the belt and on the opposite side from the belt buckle.

          .

          • daveburton Says:

            At the time of his death, on June 28, 2010, former KKK Kleagle & Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd was President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, not President Pro Tempore Emeritus. If Obama, Biden & Boehner had been in the first half of 2010, Robert Byrd would have become President of the United States.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            In case you didn’t catch my meaning, Dave, my message was basically SO WHAT? to all of your Byrd BS.

            I AM glad that you looked up the varieties of “president pro tempores” and discovered the ‘musical chairs” that went on during the time in question, but this whole mini-thread is just another of your typical attempts to distract and divert. Go away.

          • daveburton Says:

            typo correction:

            “If Obama, Biden & Boehner had been in the first half of 2010, Robert Byrd would have become President…”

            should have been:

            “If Obama, Biden & Boehner had died in the first half of 2010, Robert Byrd would have become President…”

            Apologies for my error.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “typo correction:—-Apologies for my error”, says Dave.

            Dave, I’m not going to look it up to make sure you got it right this time because it really doesn’t matter. Off the top of my head, it does sound right.

            What I want to say to you is that some day you MUST start to learn from your mistakes—-when you know nothing about a topic and just look s**t up to mindlessly spout on Crock, you have to read it enough times that you really understand it before you get out the horsepucky shovel. Otherwise you just look stupid (again).

          • daveburton Says:

            You give fomer Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd credit for not owning slaves, but the reason Robert Byrd didn’t own slaves is that the Republican Party had already abolished slavery (at staggering cost).

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yeah, Dave, and you have exposed yet another area in which your lack of knowledge makes you look foolish—-I speak of U.S.History. Time for you to get yet another “XXXX for Dummies” book in your never ending quest to get your knowledge base caught up with your mindless BS.

            The Republican Party of Lincoln that abolished slavery “at great cost” us no longer with us. The old CSA was staunchly Democrat after the Civil War because of the way the north had so viciously taken away their slaves, and remained that way until Nixon came along with his “Southern Strategy” and converted all those descendant of slave-owner Democrats to Republicans. The northern Republicans of Lincoln’s time have morphed into today’s Democrats.

            The parties have basically traded places, Dave, and the present day Democrats are AGAINST the modern iterations of “slavery” while the present day Repugnants (like you) are FOR it. You’re a freakin’ North Carolinian and a conservative Republican—how come you don’t know all that?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You are one sick SOB, Dave. The depths of your self-delusion go beyond the bounds of normality. You should seek professional help (or change therapists if you already have—-you are NOT making progress)..

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Proverbs 31:8 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute

            A bald assertion, with a freakin’ BIBLE QUOTE offered as PROOF? More classic Dave. Yep, Dave HAS gone off the deep end, and it’s especially ironic that the quote is supposed to support the good intentions (NOT) of those who are trying to take away the voting rights of many (so that they can’t speak for themselves) and cut back on food stamps, unemployment benefits, and medicaid (so that the destitute will become more destitute). LMAO

            The Republican Party has actually been ATTACKING the “defenseless” for years now, Dave. Wake up to that inconvenient truth and stop spouting BS.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As I said earlier, seek help—-you need it.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          he certainly seems like a nice, reasonable, disciplined fellow

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, doesn’t he seem so?

            Nice, reasonable, and disciplined……He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in that respect.

            And all the other clips that pop up after this one finishes are eyeopeners as well. I especially like the one in which he never shuts up and just talks over his opponent—-just like Rush—-if you can’t kill ’em with facts and logic, just drown them out.

          • daveburton Says:

            He does seem quite worked up. Perhaps he just read about Frank Lombard and Kenneth Shipp, or some similar case.

    • daveburton Says:

      WUWT has the “inside scoop” on Delingpole’s move to Breitbart London:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/18/delingpoles-new-landing-pad-the-inside-scoop/

  3. omnologos Says:

    we should start a poll…how many here wish skeptics to disappear tomorrow from the face of the Earth?

    Title of the poll…”Aiming at unanimity” 😉

    • daveburton Says:

      Not me. Unanimity is overrated.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Really? Then why do you so slavishly adhere to conservative dogma and ideology?

        It seems to me that “unanimity of belief” rather than rational analysis is just your thing and that you’re one of the circular firing squad of the mindless right.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    More of Dave’s selective reading and cherry picking of things he thinks support his crazed ideas. He quotes PART of my comment—–“I am a ‘liberal’ by your standards and I oppose abortion…..”, and thinks that makes us soul mates?

    Dave conveniently left off the rest of that paragraph—-“I respect life in all forms just because it is alive—I no longer hunt and release the fish I catch, and even try not to “squash bugs” if I can. I await evidence of a soul that needs saving in any living thing, however”. Dave omits that part because it doesn’t suit his mindless fundamentalism and all the fairy tales he calls his “religion”.

    To try to make that clear to Dave, I will repeat that ALL life is “sacred” to me, and not because of mumbo-jumbo about somebody making it, but just because life is such a scientific miracle. I feel worse about the death of humans and puppy dogs than I do about the death of cockroaches and liver flukes because the higher forms display more complexity and intelligence and “cuteness”, but, as I said. I see no evidence of “souls” and anything beyond a simple end to physical existence and a recycling of materials. When it’s over, it’s over.

    “Well, you have succeeded in surprising me, Old Guy — pleasantly, I might add”, says Dave. Dave is apparently quite easy to “surprise”—-just show him a small truth THAT AGREES IN ANY WAY WITH HIS after deluging him for months with things he refuses to accept . Truths that he does not accept are never surprising at all—-to him they’re just wrong and unworthy of thought.

    DAve says, “Over one million American unborn babies die by “choice” each year. That is a massive tragedy, an horrific slaughter. It. Should. Not. Happen.”

    I will blow Dave’s mind again by agreeing with him. Yes, as a society we have failed to be the best “humans” and “christians” we can be. We cause the deaths of tens of millions of humans of all ages here and around the world through war, environmental exploitation and destruction, pollution, run amok capitalism, and other activities that seem to be the “choice” of conservatives like Dave. Cut government regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment assistance, housing assistance, food inspections, voting rights, and anything else that does not allow the greedy rich to keep bleeding off the wealth of the society. Let the poor eat worms, live in holes in the ground, and die an early death while you get rich selling underwater real estate.

    You and your kind are hypocrites of the worst kind, Dave. And you would deny birth control assistance to those who need it most so you can oh-so-so self-righteously complain about the abortions that result? And you talk about abstention and church support to those poor girls who have unwanted babies? BS, Dave, and you know why?

    You ask, “What are you doing to try to reduce that slaughter, Old Guy?”
    The answer should be obvious—-More than you, Dave. You are about as useful to the greater good as Breitbart was.


  5. […] the BBC will pull out some climate contrarian such as Bjorn Lomborg or Delingpole (recently fired from the Telegraph), who’ll counter said peer review studies typically with “opinion”, technobabble or […]


Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: