That looks pro, not anti to me. I think Delingpole's made a mistake. They're making fun of people who dispute AGW on the basis of local weather.

That looks pro, not anti to me

Difficult to tell really, could be either.

Equally, as a AGW Denier (screw the polar bears), I'd say that is pretty accurate. There is a fundamental difference between climate and weather.

Looking at the long term trend the 'so called' warming is no more than allowed for by the margin of error / variation in any statistical analysis.

Stick that up your arse warmists!

Well, I think it takes aim at both people who don't understand the difference between weather and climate and those who won't defend the right not to understand it. They are both worthy targets.

It's not exactly making fun of the failure of global warming to be warm but it is making fun of the rather authoritarian tone of the efforts of the government to convince the public of the reality of AGW.

That is interesting. Comedians like to be seen as rebellious in contrast to the square, boring, daddy-like government - but hitherto that particular sort of rebellion had not been thought a fit subject for humour by the mostly left wing comics at the BBC.

It used to be that the typical believer in AGW was seen as a passionate young student. This sketch implicitly portrays the typical believer in AGW as a hectoring government official, and the rebel role is taken on by the ordinary bloke.

Note how it's assumed everyone says things like, "so much for global warming".

Probably the authors would say that I am reading too much into it, but I think you can often see social trends reflected in comedy, and this a good example.

(I actually remember thinking "the unions have had it now" when I saw that sketch in Not The Nine O'Clock News about union block voting.)

Yes, I thought it was more warmist than anti-warmist.

But there's also an element of having it both ways - a bit like Ali G.

What comes across, as Natalie says, is the authoritarian (totalitarian?) aspect of the AGW establishment.
It is a creed and heresy will not be tolerated!
Whatever else, it is not coming across as science.

I see it the way Natalie does. To me it basically says 'even if AGW is true, the government has no business shoving it down the people's throat' - which reflects my own attitude, more or less, not being a scientists.

I thought it could be taken both ways - and certainly the idea that you might end up in gaol if you refuse to subscribe to the orthodoxy is quite anti-warmist. Definitely not just taking this piss out of the evil Exxon-funded deniers.

Global warming proponents had been making hay out of every environmental calamity they could for quite some time. Hurricanes? That's global warming. Flooding? Global warming. Record high temperatures? Global warming. Etc.

The problem with this is that it's poor science. Climate variations are only noticeable on time scales across several years (or even decades), since there are numerous cycles and patterns of local weather variation.

All the global warming zealots who thought it was a good idea to live by the sword of notable local weather extremes and calamities are now finding that such a strategy has a few risks, especially during la nina years when unseasonably cold weather patterns are the norm.

You can't have it both ways. If you want a debate to be scientific then you need to keep it at that level, if you start polluting the debate with fear mongering, politics, and dirty tricks then you change the playing field, and only maybe in your favor in the short term.

From time to time in these hallowed portals, I have been accused of having a deficient irony detector: mostly (with the help received) I have viewed myself guilty.

But on this, there is do doubt: The Delingpole has it bang to rights.

Best regards

I think Natalie Solent nailed it. Whether it is mocking AGW per se is not clear; what it is mocking, without question, is the hectoring type of public announcement on issues such as this. So I think Delingpole is on the right track.