Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column

Posted on 31 August 2016 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from DeSmogBlog by Graham Readfearn

The Spectator is one of the oldest English language magazines on the planet, established in London in 1828.  Chances are if you’ve never read it, you’ve probably heard of it.

The Marine Biologist magazine, on the other hand, was only launched in 2013. With no disrespect to the good people there, chances are you’ve neither heard of it, read it or are aware of its very existence.

But earlier this week the Marine Biologist’s website published an eviscerating 2,500-word analysis of an April column that had appeared in The Spectator.

The column, written by climate science denier and polemicist James Delingpole, had tried to claim the science linking the burning of fossil fuels to the acidification of our oceans was “fatally flawed”.

Marine life, claimed Delingpole, had “nothing to fear” from ocean acidification.

Published back in April, Delingpole strung together what must, to some, have seemed a compelling narrative.

He had citations, “experts” and more scientific terminology than you could shake a stick at (or a copy of Marine Biologist, if you had one handy).

The problem?

Almost everything that could be factually wrong, is wrong,” wrote Dr Phillip Williamson, on the website of your new favourite magazine, the Marine Biologist.

Blow-by-Blow Debunking

Williamson, based at the University of East Anglia, is the science director of the UK government-funded Ocean Acidification Research Programme. He responded to Delingpole’s 1,200 words with 2,400-words of his own — a blow-by-blow debunking pulling apart each argument and technique Delingpole had used.

Williamson’s analysis shows how Delingpole had employed many of the tricks and failings of climate science denialists. 

He had cherry-picked data. He chose to rely on “experts”, such as fossil fuel advocates and climate science denialists Craig IdsoPatrick Moore and Matt Ridley, who had no genuine expertise in marine science.

The genuine experts Delingpole did cite, wrote Williamson, were misrepresented.

One of those experts was Dr Howard Browman, of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway, who Delingpole claimed had published “a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject” and had come to a damning conclusion that many studies were flawed.

Except six weeks before, Browman had told DeSmog that his views on the issue, reported in The Times, had actually been misrepresented.

Williamson told DeSmog that he had tried, and failed, to get The Spectator to publish his views, telling editor Fraser Nelson that Delingpole’s piece had been “willfully misleading”. He told DeSmog:

Delingpole's statement ‘Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification’ summarises his view.  But that assertion is as incorrect as the opposite, purported claims that he quotes and dismisses: for example, that ocean acidification will “turn our oceans into a barren zone of death”. 

The whole article is based on that false dichotomy, between unidentified alarmists and scientifically-naïve optimists who also happen to be climate change deniers and sceptics.  It may seem boring to say that the truth lies between the two, but it does.

DeSmog also tried to contact The Spectator’s editor, but got no response.

In his debunking, Williamson criticised Delingpole’s use of material from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and written bycoal-funded Canadian climate science denialist Patrick Moore.

Wrote Williamson: “Moore’s FCPP paper has not been subject to expert scrutiny.  If it had been, its scientific naivety and ‘cherry-picking’ approach would have precluded its publication in a reputable journal.”

Moore's views on ocean acidification have been previously debunked by a group of scientists, who described them as “misleading” and “Ill-informed”.

Delingpole also attacked the £12m of government funding going to Williamson's program, saying the whole issue “could have been resolved, for next to nothing, after a few hours’ basic research?”

That’s right.  Delingpole thinks he can understand the entire field of ocean acidification science with only a few hours Googling.

Williamson pointed out how the £12m in funding was about the same cost as a “top-of-the-range flat in central London” or two-hours worth of spending from the Ministry of Defence.

'Scientific Abuse'

As a final gambit, Delingpole tried to suggest that concerns over the impacts of ocean acidification had been manufactured around the year 2000 because global temperatures hadn't been rising and so “alarmists” needed a “fallback”. 

“The conspiratorial linkages surmised by Delingpole are imaginary,” writes Williamson, explaining the actual reasons for the increase in scientific interest in ocean acidification.

Williamson concluded : “On the basis of the incomplete and incorrect information presented by Delingpole, his own article provides much more impressive evidence for scientific abuse and distortion than anything communicated by ocean acidification researchers.”

Williamson told DeSmog: “Whilst The Spectator does not therefore seem to take very seriously its commitment to 'uphold strict standards of accuracy', I would agree that it publishes a 'quality of argument' not found in any other publication.  Unfortunately , that quality does not seem to be very high.”

2 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 4:

  1. Delingpole: "Does this prove that global warming is not a problem? No it doesn’t. What it does do is lend credence to... sceptics..."  Translation: "I have no idea if AGW is a problem or not.  However, if you want to know what to do about it, you should listen to me and not those Scientists."  It used to be rare to see such public displays of 'the superiority of ignorance', but this is Trump's World, now.

    1 0
  2. The likes of Delingpole continually present confusing and contradicting arguments to support a political ideology.

    Political ideologies will always lie and contradict their own arguments to support their flawed ideologies (this includes the left and unions).

    In Delingpoles case he is contradicting the long held view that 'global warming' sciences can not possibly make predictions because the system being analysed is to complicated. Whilst here he is claiming a few hours science will do the job (to satisfy his ideology).

    0 0


    "Scientization is, of course, what climate alarmists do all the time in order to support their bankrupt (but highly lucrative) thesis. Such is their brazen shamelessness, indeed, that you can’t help wondering whether – along with a worthless degree in something like environmental sciences from somewhere like the University of East Anglia – the main requirement for thriving in the world of climate science is the personality of a psychopath."

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.

    Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    With respect to your comment, a quote from a far-right media source citing complete baloney is simply sloganeering. Try a little skepticism about the article. It is also completely off-topic. Use the Search button on top left to find suitable articles. Review "They predicted an ice age in the 70s".  What your source fails to do is look at what science said in 70s versus the media.

    Comment reinstated. Poster clarified their intent (which would have been preferable from the start)

  4. PS. The purpose of the Delingpole quote was to show his mentality. I didn't think it needed an explanation. I still don't think it does, actually.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:


    Dennis. Accepted that was the intention of your comment, but I failed reading-tea-leaves 101. So adding some context to show whether you were supportive of Delingpole's position or not would have been helpful in understanding where you were coming from :-)

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2023 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us