Christopher Booker

Quote for the Day

James Delingpole on the blatant manipulation of the temperature records:

If the temperature records on which the entire edifice of the international global warming industry is based are a busted flush then we have all been victims of a scam so vast and all-encompassing it makes Enron look like a model of modesty and integrity. It also raises the question ? and I speak here, of course, metaphorically rather than literally: when are heads going to roll?

When indeed?

Delingpole’s entire article outlines the extent of the data fraud that is going on inside the global warming industry.

?Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,? says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he?s right not to do so. If ? as Booker, myself, and few others?suspect ? the guardians of the world?s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate ?global warming? then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.

Sure you could make a case that Lysenkoism or? Hitler?s war to discredit ?Jewish science? were more evil but these were confined to discrete geographical regions under specific totalitarian regimes. What?s so extraordinary about the manipulations to the global land-based temperature sets is that they affect every one of us, wherever we live. ? Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ?global warming? when the temperature records providing the ?evidence? for that warming cannot be trusted?

It?s a big question ? and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I?m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot ? even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world?s leading global warming experts ? say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State ? and they studied your records for a moment and said: ?This isn?t right.? What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You?d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Christopher Booker destroys the Met Office

If?only we had someone in the NZ media that could have a crack at NIWA like Christopher Booker has?just done in the Telegraph to the Met Office over their wonky predictions over climate change.

Five years after we paid ?33?million to buy the Met Office a new computer, we are now to pay ?97?million to give them a ?world-leading super-computer? ? described by its chairman as ?our integrated weather and climate model, known as the Met Office Unified Model?. That?s because it will not only ?produce the most accurate short-term forecasts that are scientifically possible?, but can also predict how the Earth?s climate will change over the next 100 years.

I scarcely need remind readers of how the Met Office?s computer modelling has performed in the past 10 years. In 2004, it predicted that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that four of the five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the ?hottest year ever?. In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the ?warmest year ever?, just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer in the UK, it told us, would be ?drier than average?, just before some of the worst floods in living memory.

From 2008 to 2010 the models consistently predicted ?warmer than average? winters and ?hotter and drier summers?: three years when much of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while in the UK, as in that promised ?barbecue summer? of 2009, we had summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October 2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to ?2C warmer than average?, just before the coldest December since records began in 1659. ? Read more »

Global Warming hasn’t happened, new data shows US been cooling since 1930s

The frauds are starting to be revealed and one of the biggest frauds in?the?history of mankind hasn’t been a committed by corporate bankers, rather by socialists and their useful idiots in the universities and scientific community.

Global Warming is dead, the evidence is building that is showing the skeptics were right all along.

Christopher Booker writes at The Telegraph:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard?s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world?s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Read more »

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports ? another emerged last week ? and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster ? hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief ?Summary for Policymakers?, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.? Read more »

UK in peril for power because of green taliban policies

Christopher Booker laments?the?state of the UK energy industry,?weighed?down with subsidised inefficiencies which will hold Britain back as it emerges from the recession:

An obsession with CO2 has left us dangerously short of power as coal-powered stations are forced to close.

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours? worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain?s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.? Read more »

Chart of the Day – Proof of global warming

Christopher Booker looks at the mounting evidence that global warming is real.

Read this and wonder why seemingly intelligent people like David Farrar make silly statements like:

My position on climate change is that greenhouse gas emissions beyond doubt cause warming. There is a legitimate debate about how much warming will occur, as we do not know for sure how the rest of the very complex climatic system will respond.

And about that warming that David says is beyond doubt?

In convincing the world that we must make such a dramatic response to man-made climate change, nothing has been more persuasive than those graphs that purport to show global temperature soaring to dangerous levels.

That iconic ?hockey stick? graph, showing temperatures recently shooting up into the stratosphere, may now have been discredited. But just as important have been all those graphs showing how temperatures have changed in recent decades. These have the effect of greatly exaggerating those changes, by narrowly focusing just on what are called temperature ?anomalies?, showing how they have risen and fallen round their average level in the past 30-odd years.

What the graphs do not show is the actual level of global temperature, as it is measured above freezing point. In other words, they leave out by far the greater part of the total picture. So the respected Canadian environmental writer, Lawrence Solomon, recently had the bright idea of publishing in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective, using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre.? Read more »

×