Talk:James Delingpole

Politics

I have altered a sentence referring to his candidacy in the Corby by-election which read "However he withdrew after an opinion poll of 1503 Corby voters identified just two (0.133%) who were planning to vote for him.[17]" It may be true that one thing followed another in the sense that it also came after the sun rose but "after" in this context strongly implies "because", and we don't know that. Certainly the explanation he gave was very different. Perhaps a sentence could be added stating that some bloggers speculated that his real reason for quitting the election was a fear that nobody would vote for him, but if so it should be clearly presented as the opinion of whoever said it, not stated as fact. Hobson (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

blp concerns

I have addressed the BLP issues by adding references wherein he calls anthropogenic climate change a "scam", and another where he admits no scientific expertise. Really I just had to refer to an already-mentioned interview to source the latter. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He Has No Scientific Qualifications

• "I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like Christopher Booker and myself 'only' have arts degrees. But actually that's our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one." [1]
• "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature." [2]
• And in the video interview, he says that he doesn't have the scientific expertise necessary to read scientific papers on climate change.

--Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

you CANNOT jump from those comments to claim "he has no scientific training". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that. I said he hasn't any scientific qualifications. He says he doesn't have a science degree explicitly in the first quote. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

you most certainly DID say it " He does not have any scientific qualifications." Do not make flat out lies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I misspoke there; I meant to quote your exact phrase to say, "I didn't say he hasn't any 'scientific training'". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I never denied he had any scientific training. Any ounce of scientific training and having a qualification/degree are surely different, would you agree? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

perhaps in theory, but still certainly not a claim that can be verified by the sources you presented without gross violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Article full protected for three days

Due to the edit warring the article has been full protected.

If an unexpected consensus breaks out any administrator not involved in the article can unprotect early (back to autoconfirmed only please, per Jimbo's 2012 indefinite autoconfirm required protect). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit protect

Please change the section titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" to "Views on climate change", per NPOV and BLP, I am quite certain Delingpole has never denied the climate changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC) As has been pointed out in this discussion, Delingpole believes in global warming. As such the title need changing per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He at many times denied Anthropogenic climate change, variously calling it a "scam", made-up, or things to that effect. Please read the sources. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Denial" is a pejorative. Given that this is a WP:BLP, a less inflammatory header would be more appropriate. If it turns out that "denial" really is the most accurate description, we can always add it back into the article later. For now, BLP requires us to be conservative. I'll also add that the current wording wasn't obtained through the normal consensus building process. Instead, it was rammed through via edit-warring, and the page was locked before anyone could fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, WP has already settled this debate. See Climate change denial and the talk page. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

First, Climate change denial is only a B-class article. See WP:Otherstuffexists. Second, just because Wikipedia has an article on "Climate change denial" doesn't necessarily mean the term applies to Delingpole. In fact, Delingpole isn't even mentioned in that article. Third, you still have to follow the normal consensus building process for your edits. The only reason why this is currently in the article is because it was edit-warred in and the page was locked before anyone could fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the article Climate change denial refers not to the term itself, but what the term is describing (rejection of the evidence-based scientific consensus on Climate change). Pardon the analogy, but would you similarly make an effort to all references to "Holocaust denial" to "Views on the Holocaust"? Just because there are two sides does not mean two sides have equal credence. The phrase "Climate change denial" is neutral and used in scholarly contexts and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Again, please see Talk:Climate_change_denial#Rename_this_article. Regards, --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't change references to "Holocaust denial" to "Views on the Holocaust". The reason why is that the term "Holocaust denial" has near universal acceptance. The term "Climate change denial" does not have near universal acceptance. The term "skepticism" is also used quite a bit. Which is used more, I have no idea. It's a false analogy to say that just because "Holocaust denial" is widely accepted, that means that "Climate change denial" is also widely-accepted. It's not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Anthropogenic climate change denial" has near universal acceptance in the relevant academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know or prove that? "Skeptic" seemed to be used a lot, too. While not part of the academic community, BBC News (a reliable source) refers to Delingpole as a "skeptic".[3][4] I doubt if they refer to David Irving as a Holocaust "skeptic" and apparently they don't.[5] See the difference? One term is widely accepted and the other is not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Read Global Warming: How Scepticism Became Denial from Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences. I think that's also used as a source on Climate change denial, mind. As I've said (repeatedly), we have already settled this. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to be behind a pay (or membership wall). Are you saying that that source specifically refers to Delingpole as a "denier"? I know that you've said that before, but WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies. The article you keep referring to has not been peer-reviewed. It's has not gone through the WP:FA, WP:PR or even the WP:GA process. There wasn't a community-wide RfC about this. You're basically relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and by extension: the article and that discussion are not about Delingpole. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the whole article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it does not contain the word Delingpole. Delingpole believes in global warming. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Guardian referring to Delingpole as a denier.

But I don't see how that should matter. As TRPOD said, the term 'Climate change denial' has universal acceptance in the scientific community for the rejection scientific consensus of Anthropogenic global warming. Would you admit quotes from respected scientists using the term as proof? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• • First, that appears to be an opinion piece, and not a straight news report. Second, I never said "denier" is never used. What I said was that both terms are used. Which is most used more often, I don't know. We should not seek out sources which say what we want them to say, and then simply repeat them. Instead, we look at the broad spectrum of reliable sources and attempt to determine if there is consensus. IOW, 1 out of 10 sources say 'X', and the other 9 say 'Y', we don't cite the oddball source for 'X'. OTOH, when reliable sources disagree, we cover the disagreement. For example, if 5 out 10 sources say 'X' and 5 say 'Y', we don't take sides. Instead, we cover both POVs. Third, what exactly is the relevant field? This is not an article about climate change. Instead, this is an article about a person, a journalist. The most relevant field is journalism. Do most academic sources about journalism refer to Delingpole as a skeptic or a denier? Or something else? Perhaps, they don't even mention this? I honestly don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Journalists are trained to look for two sides to every story, even where there's only one. Since Delingpole is offering criticism of science (which he hasn't any degrees in), his criticisms should be looked at through the lenses of tried and true, evidence-based science, IMO. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the editprotect template is a violation of TPG, best restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TPG are guidelines, and does not excuse inappropriate use of templates. The policy with this template is to only use it once consensus has been reached. By including this template without it you are violating Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to fix an obvious violation of NPOV and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an obvious violation of NPOV and BLP, otherwise there'd be a consensus. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the point is anthropogenic climate change. If that's what the sources say (e.g. that he calls it a scam, etc.), then we're all set here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources do not say that, if you have one in which he says he denies that there is any human influence on the climate we would be all set, I see to such source. The section title violates NPOV and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be disagreement about all that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It also violates WP:LABEL. We are meant to be conservative with BLPs, "Views on climate change" is neutral and accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• 'I think it's moot' -- because the original section heading was "Climate change scepticism". Kaj Taj Mahal changed on December 25 to "climate change denial". Darkness Shines changed on January 3 to "views on climate change". Kaj Taj Mahal changed on January 5 to "anthropogenic climate change denial". Even if there's no consensus, then WP:NOCONSENSUS will apply, all of Kaj Taj Mahal's bold/contentious edits will be reverted, and we'll be back to "Climate change scepticism". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that the article is currently full-protected, so it won't be changed at all unless there is consensus to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 January 2014

The placement of the "slam language" about Delingpole and peer reviewed literature in the first paragraph of this article is inflammatory and unprofessional in nature. It is a stretch to include that piece without also writing extensively on Delingpole's rebuke of the Horizon piece - with his own quotes used in his defense. 67.167.36.242 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:POV before making silly accusations of "slam language". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note that it's important to include information about the amount of expertise Delingpole has on the topic of climate, since he makes extraordinary and (in many peoples' opinion) ludicrous claims about it at all the time. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section title:

Views on anthropogenic global warming As meeting the requirements that section titles be clear and neutrally worded (full discussion including "proof" that the policy so requires on WP:BLP/N discussion). I suggest this meets the policy criteria. This is pretty nearly about as involved in "climate change" stuff as I ever get. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Views" implies anthropogenic global warming is a matter of opinion, rather than scientific fact. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No - it implies the section is about his views. Collect (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't have a section titled "Views on general relativity", or "Views on the prime number theorem". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually some editors here would have section headings of that sort... BTW, have a look at WP:BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- "views on general relativity" would absolutely be an acceptable section title in an article about a person who had "views on general relativity." Certainly I would not expect Planck to be labeled a "Relativity Denier" to be sure. ( Einstein's hypothesis of light quanta (photons), based on Philipp Lenard's 1902 discovery of the photoelectric effect, was initially rejected by Planck) so the section is labeled "Einstein and the theory of relativity" which is clear and neutral. Thanks for giving such a clear example where clear and neutral wording is used. Collect (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Planck's objection to general relativity was rooted in scientific scepticism and was justified back then. Nowadays, anyone who would deny the predictive power of GR as an approximation to gravity would probably be labeled a crank. And I'm sure you would agree that Delingpole is no Planck. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Which leads me to my other point: Delingpole doesn't do science by his own admission, and his criticisms aren't rooted in science. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per NPOV and LABEL. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - WP:Undue --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How can a section title be undue? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the rejection of Anthropogenic climate change by omitting "denial". --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that "denial" should go, as too strong. I see it it attributed to the Guardian, but that's in a blog post, not ordinary reporting. The writer is a professor, not a journalist. In ordinary reporting, media normally uses the more neutral sceptic/scepticism when they are writing articles on this topic, like in this BBC post from 2012 where Delingpole is referred to as a well-known sceptic on climate change. The title could read "climate change scepticism" which is a common term for those who question human impact on climate change. It's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is supposed to be edited somewhat conservatively, especially concerning BLPs. Iselilja (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

are you actually suggesting that journalists are better qualified to identify a scientific crank than science professors are? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am arguing that Wikipedia is based on the principle of following typically standard news site like BBC in how to label and describe people in Wikipedia's own voice. We also of course use independent scholarly work. But we don't label people based on opinion pieces or how they are described by opponents involved in debate with them. Derigatory labels like "denialists" shall only be used by Wikipedia if it is the common way to describe a person in neutral sources. Most standard media stop short of referring to persons who opposes the standard view on climate change as "denialists". I will also notice that many scientists and climatologist also stop short of using the denialist label and refer to their opponents as sceptics. Iselilja (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

actually, we are to follow the most authoritative experts on the subject Wikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research - ie the academics rate above the journalists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The blogpost in Guardian doesn't count as research. Do you have any peer reviewed research where Delingpole is described as climate change denier? I upheld that the tone and labels in ordinary news reporting set the standard for Wikipedia's tone much more than opinionated blog posts. (Paul Krugman for instance is an excellent scholar, but it doesn't meand that the opinions and labels he gives in his NYT blog is suited to be stated in Wikipedia voice) It is also common that Wikipedia is more careful about contentious label about living persons than some scholars are. For instance we seldom label people anti-semitics, islamophobes even if people have been labelled as such in some or many scholarly work. We can and will of course mention that they have been called these things, with attribution. Iselilja (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose per the self identification "the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The linked article does not use "denial" or "denier". Is there another article where you have the subject self-identifying using that term, or is this ref an error or some sort of synthesis? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose per self identification as noted by TRPOD. Another editor jumped the gun on making the proposed change, so I have reverted it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The common and mainstream name for those who reject the mainstream consensus on climate change is climate sceptics, not denialists. This is for instance the phrasing BBC uses: "Who are the climate sceptics? Although there are only a small number of mainstream scientists who reject the established view on global warming, they are supported by a larger group of well resourced bloggers and citizen scientists". See, they call them sceptitics, not denialists. Mainstream scientists also normally refer to their opponents as sceptics and not denialists. Here is an article from Norway, written by two mainstream scientists about those who reject IPPS and mainstream consensus: "The term"climate skeptic" can be used for a person who is critical of what experts have established how the climate system works." It's very important in BLPs that Wikipedia doesn't refer to people in Wikipedia's own voice in stronger or more odious terms than is prevalent in mainstream sources. Iselilja (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As proposed below, there is no need to refer to him either as a skeptic or as a denier: the section title can accurately reflect the content. Alternatively, we can simply call it his "views" but that rather understates his commentary. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support This seems a reasonable and accurate section title. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This seem to be a very reasonable, neutral alternative to the current section heading. The current section heading is not bad, but this is a little better.- MrX 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative options

Although it's widely used, "Climate change scepticism" is both meaningless and misleading: it deliberately confuses unscientific refusal to accept evidence with scientific skepticism, and even Delingpole is likely to claim that climate has changed in the past. While false balance and giving "equal validity" is common in news media, it's not the standard here.
As an alternative I tried out "Allegations against climate science" which was reverted with an invitation to revert if I felt strongly, and having added the context of the CRU affair which brought him into the limelight, and his article in which he describes himself as lacking a science degree, tried "Dispute over climate science". Other suggestions can be considered, or we can always have a !vote over preferences. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I think that allegations against climate science is a bit awkward though. 'Allegations' imply that the object of the allegations may have done something wrong, and usually applies to people, not an area of research.- MrX 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, which is why I tried an alternative wording. Other ideas welcome. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Nothing personal here, but those are bollocks. To start, he was known as an author and columnist before the CRU thing, the standard here, which you missed is BLP, and LABEL, so please tell me why, "Views on climate change" do not cover those? Along with the MOS thing Collect has mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he was known as a columnist and opponent of climate science, but I'd suggest that the CRU affair gave him a great deal more worldwide attention. "Views on climate change" is rather understated and uninformative. . dave souza, talk 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Again with "LABEL"?? Do you know what a label is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, according to WP:LABEL, denialist. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed it, but who is proposing to call him a denialist? (and btw my spell-checker suggests it's not even a word…) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse the fuck out of me for being too precise, "cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ..." Shit, thar she blows. So tell me, difference between the use of "denier", or the spell checker says it is wrong "denialist"? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Calm down honey! Let's try again. Is someone proposing to call him a denialist? Or a denier? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not call me honey, I am very, very far from bee secretions. You and one other are arguing we ought to call this BLP a "denier" in a section header, this violates MOs, NPOV and LABEL, so explain why you figure this is OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not ever suggested calling him a denier. If you want to persist in that line, you'll need a diff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

[6] And no doubt "denial" is not "denier"? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. "Denial" is not a label. Haven't we been through this? Here's how moronic your argument is: we can't use "skepticism" because it's the same as "skeptic", which is a label. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Denial is a label if used with context, so to avoid labels we follow NPOV, which leads back to me suggestion, funny that. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Then so is "skepticism". QED. Or not... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Views on climate change, Per NPOV BLP and LABEL, you have "QED". LULZ. Come back when you have an argument based on policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The suspense is almost unbearable. Okay, not really, but even so: is "skepticism" to be disallowed?? Because someone is then a (shock-horror) "skeptic"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Who mentioned "sceptic"? I most certainly have not in this section, I have argued for a section title which is compliant to policy/guidelines NPOV MOS LABEL. Once you can rebut these we can discuss further, till then, why bother? You have nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What I've done is to show how ridiculous it is to say that a word that isn't a label has to be avoided on grounds that it can be turned into a word that is a label. Denier:denial::skeptic:skepticism. The point was obvious, and all you've done is try to dodge it. Once again -- I have not proposed labelling him a "denier". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Offtopic. All I've done is point out that skeptic:skepticism is confusing mislabelling or rebranding, which can be put in context in article text but is unsuitable for section titles. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No label needed, hence the above suggested titles reflecting the section content. "Views on climate change" is rather understated and uninformative. . .dave souza, talk 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'Climategate' conspiracy theories

IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Delingpole is arguably the first person to claim that the emails stolen from CRU were evidence for a conspiracy. The second sentence in the essay in which he 'broke the story' and coined the term "climategate" reads thusly, "The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet." He essentially created the 'climategate' conspiracy theory (long debunked but still accepted by many gullible believers). I think it is appropriate to use Mr. Delingpole's own words to describe his beliefs, rather than call him a 'skeptic' or a 'denier'. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, he is appropriately categorized as a climate change denier/skeptic/conspiracy theorist. And if the bulk of this article is going to discuss that, then we should redirect it to the appropriate parent topic. Without notable secondary sources discussing Delingpole, we shouldn't even have this article. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources?

When you remove the off-topic sources, you are left with two, maybe three secondary sources that support only 10% of this article, perhaps resulting in a small stub. Why do we have this article on Wikipedia when notable television presenters like Abby Martin have been deleted multiple times? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

American political party?

Are his speculated views on American politics - especially saying he is "Republican" etc. relevant to the BLP of a non-US person? Collect (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No. And I don't think we are to put speculation into biographies. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Goertzel, Ted (2010). January 2014 "Conspiracy theories in science".

Added by IHaveAMastersDegree does not mention Delingpole, at all. Please remove this BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)