More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Bob Fechter]

" Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified."

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

 

[Jeff Young]

That article was written by Christopher Booker. Reading and relying on his "science" would be like consulting Dennis Rodman for his views on North Korea.

This is a guy who has been successfully sued for presenting false information about climate change, thinks asbestos isn't harmful, thinks second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer and believes in intelligent design and thinks evolution is not science.

You fill your head with shit, and, well, your head is full of shit.

On a range of health issues, Booker has put forward a view that the public is being unnecessarily "scared", as detailed in his book Scared to Death. Thus he argues that asbestos, passive smoking[2] and BSE[8] have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian,[9][10] and the UK Health and Safety Executive has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos.

Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health,[11] relying primarily on a 2000 paper for the UK's Health and Safety Executive by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton.[12] He wrote in January 2002 that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".[13] In response, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[14] The Health and Safety Executive issued further rebuttals to articles written by Booker in both 2005[15][16] and in 2006.[17][18] In an article in May 2008, Booker again cited the Hodgson and Darnton paper, claiming that 'they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.[19] This article was also criticised by the UK's Health and Safety Executive as "substantially misleading",[20] as well as by George Monbiot, who argued that Booker misrepresented the authors' findings.[21] Booker's claims were also critically analysed by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who in 2004 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications [22]

On climate change Booker is one of a number of members of the U.K. press doubting the evidence on global warming as collected by the IPCC.

He had previously claimed that the Climate Change Act 2008 was "the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament", and likely to cost hundreds of billions over the next 40 years.[23] In May 2009 Booker spoke at an International Conference on Climate Change organised by The Heartland Institute.[24] In the Autumn of 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. The book, which became his bestselling work, questions whether there is a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming and postulates that the measures taken by governments to combat climate change "will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made".[25] The book was characterized by Philip Ball in The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual", in which "he has rounded up just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way, and presented them unchallenged".[26] Ball went on to note that Booker's position required the reader to believe that "1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction."[26]

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain,[27][28][29][30] with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010.[31] On 21 August 2010,The Daily Telegraph issued an apology,[28] and withdrew the December article from their website[29] having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures.[29] Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC."[32]

Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design

 

[Bob Fechter]

Jeff, also from the article you failed to credit when you cut and pasted it;

" Booker's weekly columns in The Sunday Telegraph have covered a wide range of topics of public interest. Booker has been described by English columnist James Delingpole in The Spectator as doing "the kind of proper, old-school things that journalists hardly ever bother with in this new age of aggregation and flip bloggery: he digs, he makes the calls, he reads the small print, he takes up the cause of the little man and campaigns, he speaks truth to power without fear or favour"

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

 

[Larry L.]

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

"Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.""

"There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem."


Permit me to say again:

Commercial greenhouse operators often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow faster. So, 'seems to me if we want to suck CO2 out of the air on a global scale, the simplest, easiest, cheapest, most logical, "G-R-E-E-N-E-ST"/most N-A-T-U-R-A-L way to do that might be to simply plant a bunch more trees & shrubs, etc., 'round the world.

Bazillions of $$$s in gov't greenie taxes, fees and penalties wouldn't be needed to accomplish that...wwwwwhich is why we'll never see "the all-knowing" pushing for a simple solution like that one...not to mention one that's already been proven effective in greenhouses everywhere - and would cost darned near 'zero' to implement (especially when compared to government's present "plan"/course).

I'd bet the farm that, if they were simply A-S-K-E-D, most people 'round the world would voluntarially plant a tree/shrub/whatever (more than one if they so choose) in their back yard (or somewhere else if they have no 'yard [city dwellers]). 'Shouldn't need any bazillion dollar, gov't run, rule/regulation infested PROGRAM to get that done. 'Wouldn't think so anyway.

Naaaaaah. 'Too simple.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Planting trees is part of the Abbott Governments program, and he has been vilified by the left and the greens for not doing enough.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Permit me to say again:

Commercial greenhouse operators often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow faster. So, 'seems to me if we want to suck CO2 out of the air on a global scale, the simplest, easiest, cheapest, most logical, "G-R-E-E-N-E-ST"/most N-A-T-U-R-A-L way to do that might be to simply plant a bunch more trees & shrubs, etc., 'round the world.

Naaaaaah. 'Too simple.

I cant speak for the rest of the world but here in England the Forestry commission are spending huge government grants clearing woodlands of invasive species of rhodi,laurel and fir, they are then replanted with native species. Its like all of these things when chucking money at a problem is seen as the answer, the funding is there so all the landowners via forestry managers grab it and get the clearing/replanting done. Because the funding stops at that point no follow up spraying off of the invasive species is done and within ten years its all back to square one. Everyone loves Green until they are asked to pay for and maintain it.
The answer is really simple, no trees should be commercially felled without a bond being put up that would cover the cost of replanting and maintaining the stocks through to point where they are established. Everyone grabs the now money because fifty years down the road does not affect them.

Bob

 

[Bob Fechter]

"Yet I have found that the opposite is true. As I’ve documented over the years here at IER, all we have to do to defuse the alarmist position is quote from the UN’s own documents, or from the reports issued by the Obama Administration’s own teams. The baselessness of the catastrophic rhetoric is a secret hidden in plain sight, as it were. The people peddling paranoia are confident that not many Americans will actually read the compilations of the scientific literature, particularly the economic analyses comparing the costs and benefits of various proposed “solutions.”

Vox Features Yet Another Climate Science

 

[Jack]

Again, it's all about the money! And power.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

"Yet I have found that the opposite is true. As I’ve documented over the years here at IER, all we have to do to defuse the alarmist position is quote from the UN’s own documents, or from the reports issued by the Obama Administration’s own teams. The baselessness of the catastrophic rhetoric is a secret hidden in plain sight, as it were. The people peddling paranoia are confident that not many Americans will actually read the compilations of the scientific literature, particularly the economic analyses comparing the costs and benefits of various proposed “solutions.”

Vox Features Yet Another Climate Science

I disagree. I reject "alarmist" publications (which are easily identified) and rely on the vast amount of scientific research (no cherry picking) to form an overall opinion, which differs from those that state, "I'm not a scientist, but....". I have no doubt about what is happening and why. I understand a solution to it will be inconvenient and expensive, but that doesn't make it any less real. You can "follow the money" on both sides of the argument (e.g. Texas denying local restrictions to fracking). All you're doing is saying "I agree with this money's point of view and activity versus that money's point of view or activity" and then simply choose the one that most closely aligns with your ideology (which I recognize I gravitate toward that myself). So IMHO, "follow the money" is not a valid reason for rejecting any change. Even the status quo is a "follow the money" argument.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Cato Institute;

"Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science."


When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong? | Cato Institute

I disagree. I reject "alarmist" publications (which are easily identified) and rely on the vast amount of scientific research (no cherry picking) to form an overall opinion, which differs from those that state, "I'm not a scientist, but....". I have no doubt about what is happening and why. I understand a solution to it will be inconvenient and expensive, but that doesn't make it any less real. You can "follow the money" on both sides of the argument (e.g. Texas denying local restrictions to fracking). All you're doing is saying "I agree with this money's point of view and activity versus that money's point of view or activity" and then simply choose the one that most closely aligns with your ideology (which I recognize I gravitate toward that myself). So IMHO, "follow the money" is not a valid reason for rejecting any change. Even the status quo is a "follow the money" argument.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Surely no competent sane person with more than three brain cells can continue to say that the IPCC's computer models which started the whole global warming debate are correct.
Real time observations have proved them wrong. The graph above points that out!

As for follow the money many scientists who cast doubt on the global warming mantra have found themselves out of work and denied research grants.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Guess we better start burning a lot more carbon to warm up!!
http://www.catholicismusa.com/new-study-global-cooling-and…/

 

[Larry L.]

Guess we better start burning a lot more carbon to warm up!!
http://www.catholicismusa.com/new-study-global-cooling-and…/

"404 error: that page could not be found"

 

[Bob Fechter]

Sorry! New study: Cooling Atlantic Ocean May Bring 30 Years of Lower Temperatures…CatholicismUSA | CatholicismUSA

"404 error: that page could not be found"

 

I guess it all comes down to who you wish to believe. The graph below suggests the IPCC are doing OK. Much as I am very reluctant to pin a trend on individual events, there seem to be an awful lot of extreme and record breaking weather events occurring right around the globe over the past few years. But then again, I do have only three brain cells...

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Brian where did that graph come from, who was the source?

 

The figure is from Skeptical Science Pete (Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate), based on the original data from Foster and Rahmstorf (Environmental Research Letters, 6 (2011) 044022 (8pp)). As I said, it comes down to who you wish to believe. There are blogs and web pages to support just about any point of view you care to follow, each as "credible" as the next.

 

[Bob Fechter]

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record."



NOAA Tampers With Data To Erase The Global Warming

 

[Keith]

The problem now is, nobody believes anything from either aide any more, so it all boils down to how you are politically aligned and that's just bullshit.

There is the real crime...right there.