By far the most influential player in putting climate change at the top of the global agenda has been the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988, not least on the initiative of the Thatcher government. (This was why the first chairman of its scientific working group was Sir John Houghton, then the head of the UK's Meteorological Office.) Through a succession of reports and international conferences, it was the IPCC which led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, soon to have an even more ambitious successor, to be agreed in Copenhagen next year. The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases. In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years -not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself - the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different. It is not so much a scientific as a political organisation. Its brief has never been to look dispassionately at all the evidence for man-made global warming: it has always taken this as an accepted fact. Indeed only a comparatively small part of its reports are concerned with the science of climate change at all. The greater part must start by accepting the official line, and are concerned only with assessing the impact of warming and what should be done about it. In reality the IPCC's agenda has always been tightly controlled by the small group of officials at its head. As one recent study has shown, of the 53 contributors to the key Chapter 9 of the latest report dealing with the basic science (most of them British and American, and 10 of them associated with the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office), 37 belong to a closely related network of academics who are all active promoters of the official warming thesis. It is on the projections of their computer models that all the IPCC's predictions of future warming are based. The final step in the process is that, before each report is published, a "Summary for Policymakers" is drafted by those at the top of the IPCC, to which governments can make input. It is this which makes headlines in the media, and which all too frequently eliminates the more carefully qualified findings of contributors to the report itself. The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction. Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick". Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. This was so generally accepted that the first two IPCC reports included a graph, based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, showing that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s. The trouble was that this blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2. Then in 1999 an obscure young US physicist, Michael Mann, came up with a new graph like nothing seen before. Instead of the familiar rises and falls in temperature over the past 1,000 years, the line ran virtually flat, only curving up dramatically at the end in a hockey-stick shape to show recent decades as easily the hottest on record. This was just what the IPCC wanted, The Mediaeval Warming had simply been wiped from the record. When its next report came along in 2001, Mann's graph was given top billing, appearing right at the top of page one of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report proper. But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how Mann had arrived at his graph. When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it. Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick. By the time of its latest report, last year, the IPCC had an even greater problem. Far from continuing to rise in line with rising CO2, as its computer models predicted they should, global temperatures since the abnormally hot year of 1998 had flattened out at a lower level and were even falling - a trend confirmed by Nasa's satellite readings over the past 18 months. So pronounced has this been that even scientists supporting the warmist thesis now concede that, due to changes in ocean currents, we can expect a decade or more of "cooling", before the "underlying warming trend" reappears. The point is that none of this was predicted by the computer models on which the IPCC relies. Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC's methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global warming. The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March's Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. This wholly repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents. As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. "In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself." Yet it is at just this moment, when the IPCC's house of cards is crumbling, that the politicians of the Western world are using it to propose steps that can only damage our way of life beyond recognition. It really is time for that "counter-consensus" to be taken seriously. An excellent summary of flaws in the one sided political propaganda from world government and the IPCC. I've always been sceptical about the global warming hysteria, but good might come from it, for two reasons: a) throwing billions of tons of filth into the atmosphere hardly seems desirable on simple housekeeping grounds; b) politcally, we could do with being a lot less dependent on oil-rich Muslims and Russians. You will become a low-carbon peasant...Resistence is futile. It's all bunk and an arrogance that we presume to affect cycles on a vast and incredible long scale in human terms which operate on this planet. My oh my! How Messrs Webster and Oakley (Letters, today, 'Blow by blow') and all of the other 'Puff-power-pundits' must hate your Christopher Booker articles! C. Booker and D. Bellamy should be Knighted, immediately! Better still, make them permanent members of the Cabinet. No matter which party is in power! @ Peter Tuckey 7:09 AM Can the Telegraph please start a campaign, similar to the Fair deal for Drivers, have articles EVERY day by respected scientists such as Professors Roy Spencer and Fred Singer. As well as scientists more by laymen such as Christopher Booker, Richard North and others. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH MR BOOKER. You will receive such a backlash, but PLEASE keep pushing through to expose the monsterous reality that underlies the IPPC's claims, their supporters, Gore and his bandwagon, etc, etc. I'm director of a British environmental charity who has from the beginning been opposed to the above. I/we are pariahs in our field, as every other eco-type charity supports the CC agenda, though it's interesting recently FOE, et al, are backing down due to the bio-fuel deforestation catastrophe. I'm more certain each week that those like ourselves (and you) will be found to be correct in time - however I gravely fear that when that time comes it will be too late to undo the damage we'll have caused to our global ecosystem and to our own survival. Another excellent truthful article. No we know that In a world where the politicians have lost the Great work 'So very happy to be ExPat' (August 31, Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth. I've never been convinced about the obsession with carbon. However bogus it may be, it does concentrate the mind on our consumption of hydrocarbons - especially oil and gas - which will remain an issue long after the debate has moved onto something equally specious. Arctic Ice ??? you would never guess its been hotter a lot hotter in the past. Its pretty obvious that in the last few miilions of years that the planet has cooled and the earths crust has formed in such a way that supportsd life.If the greens think the planet is melting then they are using selective science. Gordon should refund our tax and subsidise our fuel this winter Or face the extinction of his party You good, simple folks have just got to get a grip on yourselves! Another very good article by Christopher Booker that, I am afraid, will remain only with the DT. Very little of the media is heeding the increasing awareness that the forecasts of the IPCC are completely incorrect and have failed to predict the mean global cooling now routinely measured. Politicians of all colours have decided that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is all settled. Hi All. They are just parasites who should be exterminated. As someone else has already said here, the wheels are starting to come off the bandwagon, the hysteria is starting to die down and world opinion is starting to sober up. Why then ? Surely Thatcher set this ball rolling to overcome objections to more nuclear energy. Some facts to ponder:- i have sent an email of the article to bbc radio 5 i bet they do not mention it. The World is at a tipping point. Squabbling academics nuancing selective data sets is a calamitous distraction. The world is becoming more ugly, toxic and hellish. Air and water are becoming commoditized. There are daily assaults from Le Corbusier the Ugly, Diddy the Tuneless, Dawkins the Clueless – guardians of the circles of hell. All credit to Christopher Booker for continually pointing out the flaws in the warmists' arguments, but I fear that unless we can achieve some sort of 'tipping point' (to borrow a phrase) in the world's media, we won't win the battle to restore sanity to the world's governments and scientific institutions. Readers may also be interested in link, which is a growing collection of links to web articles critical of the IPCC and its processes. There are many posters here, like myself, who have long been convinced that AGW is a political scam. Given all the above, and I have read enough over the last ten years to believe it, I still cannot understand what the reason is for peddling all this misinformation. Just a quick correction on the origin of the Manhattan Declaration. It was not originated by the NIPCC, the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (its proper name). We at the International Climate Science Coalition originated the Declaration and are still collecting signatures for it. I think it is now well past time to start litigation against all the lying politicians and others who have been profiting from this sham. Brilliantly written, informed scientific journalism. Good. Now convince the BBC. Climate change is a geological fact. Comment? Yup, I think so. All these people who think they know how we are affecting the climate, especially you environmentalists, greenies and tree huggers: The wheels are starting to come off the IPCC bandwagon, and not before time. The climate changes, of that there is not doubt, but the anthropogenic component has been over-exaggerated past all connection with the facts. You don't mention the dishonest methods adopted by IPCC to record their facts. So just how drastic a reduction in my standard of living was: So just how drastic a reduction in my standard of living was: The worst part is not the silly politicians but In a word, Votes. The ever ignorant public, looking for a religion to believe in have accepted the lie and the pols have fallen in line. This is one of those things that will fix itself when the public gets up front and personal with the cost. The hucksters are in it for the money. A current example is the photo posted on EU Referendum of a 'drowning' Polar Bear obviously standing in shallow water, said photo being used to solicit funds for 'protection'. Well, better late than never. Will the Telegraph The catastrophe behind climate change
By Christopher Booker
The disaster is that all political parties (importantly for us - especially in the UK and USA)are all offering their citizens the prospect of economic suicide and hardship.
The negative investment in reliable cheap power generation, coupled with deregulation, and subsidies for renewables, have already caused energy costs to sky rocket.
The deregulated energy market is highly unstable and allows a few people to speculate and syphon off money at our expense.
This jump in the cost of living due to energy costs should be the number one political issue, but the carbon religion tells us this is just the REAL cost of energy. In the eyes of the political elite, the lowering of our standard of living is perfectly justified and "our own fault". So we'd better get used to it.
Don't expect any change in policy from Cameron; he believes green is where the votes are. It could take another 10 years of cooling before politicians see reason. Until then, be prepared to pay the price of their deception.
Posted by Iain Williams on August 31, 2008 11:19 AM
Report this comment
Posted by James Lawrence on August 31, 2008 11:18 AM
Report this comment
These UN and EU scumbags don't want to save the planet, they want humans to die.
Dead Humans = Saved Planet.
These eco-scumbags are terrorists.
Posted by Jim N. on August 31, 2008 11:06 AM
Report this comment
The earth long ago discovered how to wash any amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lately has demonstrated it with other more sinister pollutants of human origin for that matter - acid rain being an example.
The planet has coped with Krakatoa and Mt St Helens etc., - and did it in its own sweet time. Billions being directed at completely unnecessary and ineffective measures is ridiculous.
What we need to do is focus on the rate of consumption of fossil fuels which is outstripping the discovery of new sources of supply - ie the unsustainable input for combustion not the output is the real problem.
Nuclear power and electricity for all transport other than by air is the answer.
Posted by simon coulter on August 31, 2008 11:05 AM
Report this comment
Posted by British Citizen, Scotland. on August 31, 2008 10:56 AM
Report this comment
"...I still cannot understand what the reason is for peddling all this misinformation. Who gains what?"
Think snouts in troughs, hands in taxpayers wallets, self perpetuation...is a good starting point.
Hth.
Posted by Bartman on August 31, 2008 10:52 AM
Report this comment
To start off how about a repeat of the articles by Christopher Monckton, "Climate chaos? Don't believe it" published I believe in November 2006 in the Telegraph.
In editorials as well we need the IPCC views to be challenged, or perhaps better rubbished, as well as those of the main political parties. The fourth largest party does not believe in AGW so how about supporting their views rather than the so called Conservative party.
Posted by Alec Y on August 31, 2008 10:43 AM
Report this comment
Posted by J Hart on August 31, 2008 10:39 AM
Report this comment
the Cold War has NOTHING to do with climate
change!!!
Posted by Kered Ybretsae on August 31, 2008 10:27 AM
Report this comment
ability to reason why they wanted to represent
their fellow man, jumped up dogma and theories
now appear to flourish unchecked. Mr Booker,
you deserve a medal for your unswerving
coverage of this widespread Global Warming
jiggery-pokery.
Posted by Rick on August 31, 2008 10:16 AM
Report this comment
2008 2:52 AM).
If everyone in the world (all 6,602,224,175 of them)
would follow your fine example by investing in CFL
bulbs, wall insulation, duel pane windows, new
refrigerator and a Prius, I think we would have this
'global warming' thingamy just about licked.
Posted by Christopher Hanley on August 31, 2008 10:10 AM
Report this comment
To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.
Thank goodness there are still people like Christopher booker who have the intelligence and ability to stand up to the mindless politicians and the Left.
Many are clearly part of the paid-up MMGW bandwagon who do not even consider that the UN and their "science" might be completely wrong - this is their new "Religion".
Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new "religion" that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 ...
"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models..."
Many scientists, geologists and historians dispute the causes of climate change - ( remember, climate has always changed, witness the growing of vines all over England pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before),yet the UN and those scientists paid by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called "deniers" by those of feeble mind or Left-Wing persuasion.
The Sun effects climate change - Man, as Canute took pains to demonstrate, is puny against Nature.
Left-Wing doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW. The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any "weather" on climate change, and now forge ahead with the propaganda and the " beyond argument" line so beloved of dictators and Communists.
"Green" taxes and the IPCC could have a far greater impact on people and the current economic "climate" than the much maligned CO2(which is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World's cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do).
Already we can see the effects on food, and electricity prices caused by a lack of nuclear generation and massive "green" costs which we are all now paying for, in the vain, misguided and deluded belief that we are causing climate to change.
Posted by Paul Butler on August 31, 2008 10:03 AM
Report this comment
Posted by Mike Page on August 31, 2008 9:58 AM
Report this comment
Water vapour is by far far the biggest component of so called greenhouse gasses. More water more clouds less albedo.
Hurricane Gustave?/ you would thibnk there had never been hurricanes before. The biggest lss of life in the US for hurricanes was back in about 1910.
Hurricane activity is very low at the moment.
What kind of dopes build a city 20ft below water level in a hurricane zone.
Read all about UN Appatchick Maurice Strong if you want to learn about the AGW scam.
Posted by TrevorH on August 31, 2008 9:55 AM
Report this comment
Posted by Jack Frost on August 31, 2008 9:54 AM
Report this comment
Haven't you realised by now that some sort of bogeyman ( and of course the bigger the better ) is essential for human survival.
See, the old flight or fight mechanism's got to be kept in good working order, otherwise we'll all get obese and lazy, and have to beg for state handouts.
Hmmm, bit of a glitch in my theory there ; but never mind, I'll get in a strop and demand that all discussion of THAT little snag be forbidden.
Why do you think that throughout the ages there've been devils, witches, djinns and other unsociable being to torment us, eh? Obviously for the above reasons.
Oops, forgot guilt! Gotta have plenty of that, mainly because we've all got obese and lazy, and demand state handouts just for being us.
Clearly there should be a government campaign to alleviate this severe problem -- well, problems, actually, and the NHS must issue suitable chains.
We must all then, perhaps on Mondays and Thursdays, be made to flog ourselves about the streets ( closed off by the plod, of course )while whining thinly suitable mantras. " Man made global warming ommmm!" " We are all guilty ommmm!"
This is what our forebears did in mediaeval times, and it worked a treat! Got 'em out of all those rude, smoke-filled huts and out into the fresh air for a bit of vigorous exercise.
Hang on tho' aren't there adherents of a particular religion of peace and brotherly love love who do just that today? Doesn't seem to work for them, does it?
Ah well, back to the drawing board.
Posted by ariel on August 31, 2008 9:47 AM
Report this comment
Recently Tim Yeo said of the Kingsworth coal fired power station. "So what the committee [the Environmental Audit Committee] is saying is that the government should not allow any new coal-fired power stations to be built unless there is an absolute condition that they won't operate without CCS [carbon capture and storage]. He then said: "If we do not move to low carbon electricity generation in this country we will face a terrible problem in 10 years time and pay an even bigger price when we have to solve it then."
The latter comment is completely at odds with the views of an increasing number of eminent scientists and Yeo's claim that the South East coastal regions should be peppered with off shore wind farms will certainly not keep the lights burning and will have to be backed by conventional power stations.
Currently we have Dr Hansen's catastrophic predictions made in 1998 shown to be utterly incorrect, yet he persists with calls for CEOs of energy producing companies to be tried for crimes against humanity. We have the even more catastrophic claims of Al Gore being proved to be at best errors at worst downright lies.
What worries me is that our children are taught that AGW is a proven fact. As yet it is a hotly contested hypothesis. If they are being taught this side of the argument only then it is tantamount to brain washing.
And I support Michael Kopp 2:06 AM. Please DT balance articles by AGW alarmists with those written by sceptics. Surely the number of sceptical comments here proves that many readers wish it.
Posted by P Stroud on August 31, 2008 9:30 AM
Report this comment
For the full story about the scam that is climate change go to lifeinthemix.co.uk global warming page and see the full history of the IPCC..
"A Right Royal Society Swindle"
Posted by Life on August 31, 2008 9:23 AM
Report this comment
Posted by D. Smith on August 31, 2008 9:14 AM
Report this comment
Personally speaking, I have been ridiculed for my anti-M.M.C.C opinions over the last five or so years, and I will be very glad when I no longer have to defend myself against the zealots of A.G.W.
The problem is that it will be a long hard process before we can stop talking about this non-issue and get back to discussing the truth again. Many of the most prominent and hysterical cheerleaders for the cause have painted themselves into a metaphorical corner with the strength and fury of their opinions. They will not stop until they are both discredited and removed from any positions of influence.
I have come to the conclusion that the tide could be turned if someone were to get Al Gore into court and have his inane ramblings subjected to judgement and a legal standard of proof. He would undoubtedly lose. I think this should be the task of activists on both sides of the Atlantic, to find common cause behind either bringing a writ against Gore or forcing him to take legal action against them. Perhaps a prominent journalist could publicly attack him and force him to bring some kind of libel case
I am heartened by the choice of Sarah Palin as the prospective Veep for the Republicans. She is on record as being anti-M.M.C.C and with her being in the administration; we might start to see an outbreak of common sense.
Posted by Tony Nicholls on August 31, 2008 9:12 AM
Report this comment
Why now ? It has mutated from its original remit operating in a post-democratic vacuum with tax payers lavish expense by the combination of die hard socialist/communist wanting to economically level the west and us neocons wanting to remove russian/opec middle east oil reliance/power.
I fear the commies but think the us may have a point. But why is'nt there a turbine on every house ? If everybody needs to contribute why are we not allowed to generate our own power as well - i think the socialists are ahead and unfortunately the yanks are now happy with that until they achieve energy independence in 10 years time.
Posted by Stuz Graz on August 31, 2008 9:11 AM
Report this comment
Arctic Ice cover is currently just above the lowest ever recorded (last year was the record)
Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 1C rise in temp.
Changing the Earth's albedo (amount of sunlight reflected back into space) by 3% , increases the Earth's temp by 1C.
The missing Ice in the Arctic is causing the Ice Albedo feedback warming now.
Less Ice = Lower Albedo = Warmer Earth
Trying to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere now is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The feedback will now take control, we may get away with only 2-3 c warming during the next century if we are lucky. If the warming starts a second feedback (frozen methane in the Arctic released into the atmosphere , it will be > 5C).
Posted by John Edmondson on August 31, 2008 8:50 AM
Report this comment
Posted by mike aherne on August 31, 2008 8:44 AM
Report this comment
Non-locality / shared consciousness is a beacon to a new, yet ancient, reality. What I do does count, more and more. GDP does not index success or achievement: it is the mortician’s ticker. The dreadful dirge of this awful tick, repeated ad nauseam, is a Chinese water torture and the madness intensifies.
So please, Dear Telegraph, do not stroke the egos of bickering and manipulative debutantes. Please better promote and inform, use new and more enlightened correspondents, even at the risk of some ridicule from those twitching on marble slabs. Set a new path; help a breakout from a moribund cultural system. Once the soul sees the real Hell, it is too late to repent.
Posted by Mark Derek on August 31, 2008 8:24 AM
Report this comment
Since the media gravitate towards scare stories and sensationalism, it is obvious why they have concentrated on the "we're all going to die from global warming" angle. They wouldn't sell many papers with a headline like "This year's weather is pretty much like it's always been".
However, since the evidence that the warmists' arguments are full of, ironically, hot air and that the IPCC is riddled with corruption and bias keeps mounting, maybe there is a sensationalist angle to this that the media could pick up on. Surely a team of investigative reporters could do some research and publish a series of stories from that angle? By now, it would seem that it should be pretty big news that the whole climate change issue is a scam and that the world is planning on committing itself to economic disaster for no reason.
So how about it Telegraph? Start a real debate in the mainstream media - adopt an editorial line that, to paraphrase Henry Ford, human-caused climate change is bunk. Interview those scientists who disagree with the IPCC, expose the warmist fraternity, popularize the technical literature that shows that climate models don't work. There must be an untapped gold mine of material there. Go for it.
Posted by William Hiley on August 31, 2008 7:52 AM
Report this comment
Posted by John McLean on August 31, 2008 7:40 AM
Report this comment
Why do not comments like yours find any readership at Westminster? They behave like some secret society; like a kind of masonic lodge, where everything is done by nods and winks and where the 'brotherhood' is utterly impenetrable.
When are some respected Tory leaders going to fart in the AGW church? It's well past time now; the game is up. Most thinking people know that this is a tax raising fig-leaf.
The proponents of AGW are the sort who refuse to change their minds, irrespective of any evidence. How could any of the 53 leading lights of the IPCC retreat from the crass assertions to which they have given their name? It would call for far more personal courage than they clearly possess.
But the most dangerous folk of all are the lay AGW zealots. These are the foam-flecked, fist-shaking know-nothings, whose passion for the notion of man-made global warming is rooted in something rather sinister. I refer of course, to socialism.
It's quite clear that the majority of AGW supporters are left-wing. So, what's their game?
If the West (and it will only be the West) engages upon these 'preventive' measures, the cost will be worse than eye-watering; it could bring down the entire capitalist system. Whilst Russia, China and India flourish - with coal smoke belching from their power stations - we shall go into an economic collapse.
That's the agenda of the lefties and that alone, is why the Tories must urgently find a politician of courage and strength to reverse this red scam.
We could start by burning down Broadcasting House!
Posted by Graham King on August 31, 2008 7:39 AM
Report this comment
Who gains what?
Posted by Peter Tuckey on August 31, 2008 7:09 AM
Report this comment
Presently, we stand at about 1,300 endorsers, about half of whom are well trained in science or technology and 200 of whom are experts in climate science or closely related areas. You can read, and endorse, the Manhattan Declaration at link .
The NIPCC document is excellent indeed and may be seen at link .
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Posted by Tom Harris on August 31, 2008 6:58 AM
Report this comment
Posted by OZ on August 31, 2008 6:15 AM
Report this comment
Someone better be protecting Mr Booker because he seems to be the only one speaking the truth professionally in the British 'quality' and mass media these days.
There is a lot at stake with the explosive, unorthodox knowledge revealed here. Better men the Booker have suddenly become terminally disabled for much, much less. We need to remember that.
Even his own, current employers are uncomfortable with the honesty of the arguments - with the truth, in other words.
I wish the brave writer of this definitive article a long life.
That's all.
Posted by Jono on August 31, 2008 5:15 AM
Report this comment
Posted by Roger Brady on August 31, 2008 4:57 AM
Report this comment
Anybody who thinks otherwise either has their snout at the $45 trillion trough or has their head so far up their PC green backside that they should know better where the main emmisions are from.
Posted by Bob Landy on August 31, 2008 4:31 AM
Report this comment
1. You don't
2. Come and see the climate from where I am now. That is 100 miles from the centre of hurricane Gustav at sea! Then presume to tell me that it is us affecting nature, not the other way round.
When the Earth has had enough of mankind she'll get rid of us just the way she has done for other prehistoric life for the past 3 billion years that life has existed on Earth. You know what, there will be nothing we can do about it. Green tax, CO2 emissions, solar cars, won't make a blind bit of difference.
The con has gone on long enough.
Posted by Unbeliever on August 31, 2008 4:20 AM
Report this comment
The only real 'deniers' are the people who can't accept that all assertions that CO2 is to blame for the naturally changeable global climate are either bad science or shoddy journalism. Both are equally at fault.
Posted by Mister Jones on August 31, 2008 3:35 AM
Report this comment
Of the nearly 2000 ground heat measuring stations throughout the USA, 75% have been painted with a latex paint which causes the temperature to rise..... others have been sited on tarmacadam roads etc etc.
What Nanny wants Nanny must get.
Al Gore meanwile, makes a killing by selling carbon credits ( what a scam) to the gullible.
My friends are cutting off their feet.
Posted by DeLyon Getty on August 31, 2008 3:16 AM
Report this comment
changing all my light bulbs to CFL, blowing insulation into my walls, fitting duel pane windows,
replacing my old refrigerator, scrapping my 12 year old car and buying a Prius,
& fitting solar PV on the roof that produces about 110% of my power requirements. Funny I don't notice any reduction at all. Nor did I notice it when I shifted to local produce, slight increase in cost, yes, offset by huge increase in quality.
Posted by So very happy to be ExPat on August 31, 2008 2:52 AM
Report this comment
changing all my light bulbs to CFL, blowing insulation into my walls, fitting duel pane windows,
replacing my old refrigerator, scrapping my 12 year old car and buying a Prius,
& fitting solar PV on the roof that produces about 110% of my power requirements. Funny I don't notice any reduction at all. Nor did I notice it when I shifted to local produce, slight increase in cost, yes, offset by huge increase in quality.
Posted by So very happy to be ExPat on August 31, 2008 2:52 AM
Report this comment
businesses that have discovered there is money to
be made support climate change. These include
General Electric (GE), Duke Energy and Volvo.
GE is spending a million US dollars this year
lobbying politician to pass climate change laws.
Posted by Ross on August 31, 2008 2:48 AM
Report this comment
Posted by Frank Forster on August 31, 2008 2:16 AM
Report this comment
now continue this awakening to reality by
running skeptical articles equalling the number
of articles and space given to the believers
(including yourselves) in its pages over the last
decade? Your balance ratio for that time must be
something like 99 percent believers, one percent
(or less) skeptics. If you were responsible
journalists, it would always have been the other
way round. The doubts have been known since
the beginning of the IPCC global warming
crusade against humanity as far back as 1988,
when I was the only national media person
putting skeptics on a national platform (Radio
New Zealand public radio) here. Shame on you,
Telegraph, for taking so long.
Posted by Michael Kopp on August 31, 2008 2:06 AM
Report this comment
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Comments
Posts
