The most retarded 'serious' journalism ever
Can be found here.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of the Daily Telegraph by some way, but I've never seen it sink quite this low. And I speak as someone who doesn't give a donkey's danglers about global warming.
The story it's talking about is here. It's a little BBC filler piece about how the island of Eigg (part of the Inner Hebrides, just off the west coast about halfway up Scotland) is being mildly careful about its energy use since a freak period of very dry weather (the west coast of Scotland is a notoriously damp place) has affected its hydroelectric power output.
The island, as the piece notes, normally generates an astonishing 92% of its energy from renewable sources like hydro power, and also makes use of wind and solar generation. It also plans to expand these projects further. However, it sensibly has backup diesel generation for extremely unusual circumstances such as those currently occurring, and no actual restrictions have been placed on the islanders' energy use. They're just being careful to be on the safe side.
Delingpole's astonishingly disingenuous piece selectively omits most of these facts, portraying the foresighted and resourceful people of Eigg as some manner of primitive superstitious nutjobs, and apparently finding it utterly hilarious that they're taking very minor precautions to try to avoid using fossil fuels if they can help it. He must absolutely piss himself when England imposes hosepipe bans on the people of Kent every summer.
I don't know if mankind is changing the planet's climate. The evidence seems to suggest that it probably is, but I'm no expert and I haven't studied it in enough depth to have a firm view either way. What I'm certain of is that one way or another, whether by climate change or pollution or any of half-a-dozen other routes, human beings are soon going to destroy this planet – the only known host of life in the infinite universe – as a habitable environment, and probably take every other species down with us.
The only realistic chance of preserving life in the known entirety of creation is if Homo Sapiens dies out before we can finish the job. Personally I favour the voluntary approach, but I'd gladly make an exception for James Delingpole.