Posted on May 10th, 2011 No comments
It appears that science has now caught up with shale gas extraction technology, and the result is a toxic shock :-
“Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas Pollutes Water Wells : A new study indicates that fracturing the Marcellus Shale for natural gas is contaminating private drinking water wells : By David Biello, Scientific American, May 9, 2011″
This might come as a bit of a nasty blowback for Christopher Booker, who was singing the praises of “gamechanger” shale gas at the weekend :-
“Shale gas could solve the world’s energy problems : It’s anathema to environmentalists, but shale gas is a new fossil-fuel source that could power the world for centuries : By Christopher Booker 7:30PM BST 07 May 2011″Energy Change, Energy Insecurity, Environmental Howzat, Fossilised Fuels, Gamechanger, Hydrocarbon Hegemony, Incalculable Disaster, Mass Propaganda, Methane Madness, Money Sings, Near-Natural Disaster, Protest & Survive, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Resource Curse, Solution City, Sustainable Deferment, Technofix, Technological Fallacy, Technological Sideshow, Technomess, Toxic Hazard, Unconventional Foul, Unnatural Gas, Water Wars Christopher Booker, Daily Telegraph, Matt Ridley
Posted on September 18th, 2010 No comments
Totally new data set – totally new temperature proxy – totally the same Hockey Stick.
Michael Mann, Phil Jones and all the experts are more than vindicated.
Steve McIntyre, Marc Morano, and your “tribes”, will you stand aside, please ?
You’re just getting in the way of the true course of discovery.Climate Change, Global Warming, Science Rules, The Data Andrew Montford, Anthony Watts, Benny Peiser, Bishop Hill, Bjorn Lomborg, Bob Carter, Christopher Booker, Christopher Monckton, contrarian, delayer, denial, denier, Dennis Avery, Fred Singer, Hockey Stick, Ian Plimer, James Delingpole, Judith Curry, Lawrence Solomon, Marc Morano, Michael Mann, Myron Ebell, Nigel Lawson, obtructer, Pat Michaels, Phil Jones, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr, Roger Pielke Sr, Roy Spencer, sceptic, skeptic, Steve McIntyre, Steve Milloy, Steven Goddard, Tim Ball, Tom Fuller
Posted on September 15th, 2010 1 comment
The not-widely-awaited “investigation” into the official inquiries into “Climategate” from the Nigel Lawson “social experiment”, the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, looks to me rather like a botched piece of cosmetic surgery on first scan.
I’d recommend avoiding it, as it seems to me like a total waste of valuable time, based, as I believe it is, on an obvious absence of leg-shaped support.
I wouldn’t have bothered spending five vacant minutes commenting on it unless I knew my various sceptic readers were standing by, eagerly salivating over tearing me to shreds about any statements I might make.
Lunch, boys ?
If you are a proper Climate Change researcher, unless you’ve got the time and funds and staffing to launch an investigation into how the Climategate Media circus was ever allowed to happen, I’d suggest you avoid entering into any kind of discussion about this latest seemingly vapid wraith of veneer.
I am sure you will detect what looks like irascible sniping from Andrew Montford (as known as “Bishop Hll”) in various newspaper reports that follow on from this outpouring of apparently obsessive introspection into a non-scandal that’s deader than a century-old donkey’s fetid tail.
But nothing will trounce the ultimate truth – Climategate will never breathe another modecule of serious Media oxygen, even if it lives on in rabid obscurity in Internet zombie-blog-land.Bad Science, Bait & Switch, Climate Change, Global Warming, Media, Non-Science, Protest & Survive, Public Relations, Social Change Andrew Montford, Benny Peiser, Bishop Hill, Christopher Booker, Climate-gate, Climategate, delayer, denial, denier, Global Warming Policy Foundation, GWPF, James Delingpole, media circus, Nigel Lawson, non-scandal, obstructer, sceptic, septic, skeptic, The Daily Telegraph, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The GWPF, The Spectator, timewasters, wasting time
Posted on September 5th, 2010 2 comments
Looks like Christopher Booker may have fallen from the safety net of sanity, judging by his latest output, which appears to be a jumble of trick-of-the-light semantics, plays on words, reheated half-errors and unwarranted accusations :-
“A cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC : The Inter-Academy report into the IPCC, led by Rajendra Pachauri, tiptoes around a mighty elephant in the room, argues Christopher Booker. : By Christopher Booker : Published: 6:38PM BST 04 Sep 2010 : A report on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on behalf of the world’s leading scientific academies, last week provoked even some of the more committed believers in man-made global warming to demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. But is the report all that it seems? Last winter, the progress of this belief – that the world faces catastrophe unless we spend trillions of dollars to halt global warming – suffered an unprecedented reverse. In Copenhagen, the world’s leaders failed to agree a treaty designed to reshape the future of civilisation. This coincided with a series of scandals that blew up around the IPCC’s 2007 report. Since then several inquiries, including three into the leaked “Climategate” emails, have tried to hold the official line, all following a consistent pattern. Each has made a few peripheral criticisms, for plausibility, while deliberately avoiding the main issue. Each has then gone on to put over the required message: that the science of global warming remains unchallenged…”
“…demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri…” ? Why ? Just because the world’s media are hounding him ?
“…a series of scandals…” ? What, the non-scandals puffed up into “news” that several newspapers have had to print retractions for ?
And they pay him to write this stuff ?
Clearly, the Daily Telegraph have money to burn.
Why is Christopher Booker’s opinion piece so poor (in my view) ?
For a start, read this web log post from Bart Verheggen :-
“…most IPCC mistakes were minor or even imaginary, and most were in working group 2 about (regional) effects of climate change; they did not concern the physics of climate and why it is changing…”
He quotes the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant :-
“On the one hand climate scientists are expected to keep themselves to the facts only. At the same time their results and understanding are also arguments in the societal discussions about climate change. But as soon as they participate in this discussion accusations of bias come up. A more professional IPCC should not only work on the internal weaknesses and make and present itself as scientifically solid as possible. It will also have to make clear that its work has political implications, but that that doesn’t mean that it’s engaged in doing politics…”
This shows up the possibility that Christopher Booker’s writing is probably strongly biased as well as likely inaccurate.
How can it be that Christopher Booker (in my humble opinion) portrays the real situation so erroneously ?
Where does he get his views from ?
What is he trying to fight, here ? And why is he using rusty, broken weapons ? How is it that journalists and commentators have become so mistaken about an issue that’s so important to get right ?
Posted on September 4th, 2010 No comments
Even only semi-regular perusers of this little web log will be astonished, galled and maybe even venomously upset to discover that for once, and probably only the once going on past evidence, I actually agree with Christopher Booker :-
“The Clean Development Mechanism delivers the greatest green scam of all : Even the UN and the EU are wising up to the greenhouse gas scam, “the biggest environmental scandal in history”, says Christopher Booker. : By Christopher Booker : Published: 28 Aug 2010 : …The way the racket works is that Chinese and Indian firms are permitted to carry on producing a refrigerant gas known as HCF-22 until 2030. But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. By destroying the HCF-23, the firms can claim Certified Emission Reduction credits worth billions of dollars when sold to the West (while much of the useful HCF-22 is sold onto the international black market). Last year, destruction of CFCs accounted for more than half the CDM credits issued, in a market that will eventually, it is estimated, be worth $17 billion. Of the 1,390 CDM projects so far approved, less than 1 per cent accounts for 36 per cent of the total value. Even greenies have become so outraged by this ridiculous racket that the Environmental Investigation Agency has described it as the “biggest environment scandal in history”…”
I would commend Mr Booker to get his chemical acronyms sorted out, by substituting “HCF” with “HFC”, or “HCFC”, but apart from that, which was fairly easy to unpick, it is quite an honourable description of the problem.
None of the money-based “flexible mechanisms” sewn into the Kyoto Protocol appear to be working, and that’s because they are (a) money-based and (b) not economy-wide.Big Picture, British Sea Power, Burning Money, Carbon Commodities, Climate Change, Corporate Pressure, Cost Effective, Disturbing Trends, Emissions Impossible, Energy Revival, Financiers of the Apocalypse, Fossilised Fuels, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Low Carbon Life, Marvellous Wonderful, Oil Change, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Social Change, Solar Sunrise, Utter Futility, Vain Hope, Wind of Fortune Carbon Credit, Carbon Dioxide, CDM, CERs, Certified Emissions Reductions, China, Chindia, Christopher Booker, Clean Development Mechanism, flexible mechanism, Fossil Fuels, Greenhouse Gases, HCFC-22, HCFC-23, HFC, HFC-22, HFC-23, India, Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, refrigerant
Posted on August 9th, 2010 1 comment
Jaw-droppingly, the BBC have apologised for the contents of a Today Programme. Not the one that caused poor, deceased Dr David Kelly so much embarrassment, God rest his soul. No, the one that featured the breaking of the “Climategate” e-mail scandal :-
The BBC picked the wrong scandal story to run with, it appears.
The real scandal of Climategate is how the scientists’ e-mails were “liberated” from the University of East Anglia, and then annotated to give heavily biased interpretation, then released to the general public via the Internet, and how the Media were taken in.
Certain people at the BBC chose to go with the fake scandal, it seems – the narrative fabricated and dictated to them by Climate Change deniers.
Anyway, now the BBC have made an apology, of sorts. Better late than never, but all the same, it would have been better earlier rather than later.
Thankfully, despite the late apologies, this particular alleged witch-hunt didn’t end with a suspected suicide. Although it did include reports that Professor Phil Jones had, in fact, contemplated suicide; the reporting of which just added to his completely groundless public humiliation at the hands of the Press. Which they should apologise for, in my humble opinion. Just as good (old) George Monbiot had the good grace to offer some regret for :-
“BBC apologises to University of East Anglia for “incorrect” remark”
“The BBC has apologised for an “incorrect” remark made by John Humphrys that UEA researchers had “distorted the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be”.”Bad Science, Bait & Switch, British Sea Power, Climate Change, Corporate Pressure, Delay and Deny, Divide & Rule, Emissions Impossible, Energy Revival, Fair Balance, Freak Science, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Hide the Incline, Low Carbon Life, Media, Non-Science, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Social Change, Solar Sunrise, Unqualified Opinion, Unutterably Useless, Utter Futility, Vain Hope, Wind of Fortune Al Gore, Amazon, Amazongate, anti-Science, apologies, apologises, apology, Bad Science, BBC, Ben Goldacre, Ben Santer, Christopher Booker, Climategate, Climatic Research Unit, contrarian, CRU, David Kelly, delayer, denial, denier, Doug Keenan, Erik M. Conway, Fiona Harvey, Fred Pearce, George Monbiot, Guardian Newspaper, hell freezes over, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, James Delingpole, Jeremy Vine, John Christy, John Humphrys, Jonathan Leake, Justin Lancaster, Kevin Anderson, Lawrence Solomon, Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes, Nigel Lawson, obstructer, Panorama, Phil Jones, Richard Lindzen, Roger Revelle, S. Fred Singer, sceptic, Siegfried Fred Singer, Siegfried Frederick Singer, Simon Lewis, skeptic, Stephen Schneider, Steve McIntyre, Steve Schneider, The BBC, The Guardian Newspaper, Today, Today Programme, Tom Heap, Trevor Davies, UEA, University of East Anglia
Posted on July 28th, 2010 1 comment
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom spent almost an entire week crafting a political framework for power-sharing after the “hung” General Election.
Those considered the most appropriate people were appointed to positions in the central Cabinet, people from both political parties, with the aim and ambition of working together closely and fraternally.
Back room agreements were painstakingly forged, deals were clearly made, and explained publicly in a transparent fashion. In the day-to-day operation of Government, it is made clear who is speaking on behalf of themselves, their party or the Coalition.
This is probably the best example of cooperative, progressive politics since…I don’t know when. But all Christopher Booker seems to want to do is snipe, moan and smear, and appears to throw in as many factually incorrect allegations and fake statistics about wind power as he possibly can.
I certainly wouldn’t pay him to write such divisive, unreferenced, unverified stuff. What’s he trying to do ? Split public opinion ? :-Climate Change, Cost Effective, Divide & Rule, Energy Revival, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Low Carbon Life, Media, Political Nightmare, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Social Change, Solar Sunrise, Wind of Fortune Chris Huhne, Christopher Booker, Conservative Party, cost competitive, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, delayer, denier, Economy, electricity, Energy, Energy Policy, free energy, free fuel, free fuel forever, free power, government intervention, government regulation, high rates of return, James Delingpole, Low Carbon Energy, Margaret Thatcher, obstructer, sceptic, skeptic, Wind Farm, wind finance, Wind Power, Wind Turbine
Posted on July 4th, 2010 3 comments
Christopher Booker, opinion-former, and seemingly bad-tempered seeming curmudgeon at the Daily Telegraph newspaper, has issued what looks like a threat to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in his weekly highly unsubstantiated rail against Climate Change science :-
“‘Climategate’, ‘Amazongate’ – when will the truth be told? : By Christopher Booker, 03 Jul 2010 : …Meanwhile, there has been a further twist to that other IPCC scandal, “Amazongate”, on which I reported last week. This centred on the claim in its 2007 report – attributed only to a paper from green activists at the WWF – that a slight reduction in rainfall caused by climate change could kill up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. After exhaustive analysis by my colleague Dr Richard North of every document cited by the WWF to back its claim, it seems clearer than ever that there is no good evidence. I have given the WWF one more chance to come up with that evidence, and will reveal its response next week. If it is unable to do so, the IPCC will again be convicted of having made a wildly alarmist claim it cannot justify. Yet this is the body on whose allegedly unimpeachable scientific authority our Government and others propose to land us with the biggest bill in history.”
Eurgh. I’m quaking in my boots. What a terrible threat. Who will fear this peerless man ?
Posted on June 28th, 2010 No comments
Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube
I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?
Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.
Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.
First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.
The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).
If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.
Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
28 June 2010
I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.
I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.Behaviour Changeling, British Sea Power, Carbon Army, Carbon Capture, Carbon Commodities, China Syndrome, Climate Change, Energy Revival, Geogingerneering, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Health Impacts, Low Carbon Life, Media, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Pet Peeves, Political Nightmare, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Science Rules, Social Change, Solar Sunrise, Voluntary Behaviour Change, Vote Loser, Wind of Fortune Act on CO2, ActOnCO2, Anglican, Atomic Energy, Atomic Power, BP, business lobby, C of E, Campaign against Climate Change, Capitalism, Carbon Capture and Storage, Carbon Energy, CCS, CEO, Christopher Booker, Church Commissioners, Church of England, cigarette, Climate Change Act, Climate Forum, Climate Safety, Climate Union, ClimateSafety, coal, CofE, Commissioners, Concentrated Solar Power, Corporate Europe Observatory, denial, denier, Domestic Energy Consumption, economic recovery, economics, Economy, electricity, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Europe, European Union, Fair Pensions, FairPensions, Fossil Fuel Energy, Fossil Fuels, Gas, Gasoline, government, green employment, Green Energy, green jobs, green stimulus, Hydropower, James Delingpole, lobbying, Low Carbon, Low Carbon Transition, Make Poverty History, MakePovertyHistory, Marine Energy, Natural Gas, Neoliberalism, Nigel Lawson, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Oil, opinion poll, pensions, Petrol, Petroleum, Photovoltaic, policy, political will, public mandate, public opinion, Regulation, Renewable, Renewable Energy, sceptic, Shareholders, Shares, skeptic, Society, Solar power, Steve McIntyre, Stocks and Shares, Sustainable, Sustainable Energy, Tidal Power, tobacco, transport, UK, UK Government, United Kingdom, vote, voting, Wave Power, Wind Energy, Wind Power
Posted on January 11th, 2010 1 comment
The Daily Telegraph newspaper, the grand uncle of the broadsheets, allows through a little slip-up. I am sure it will get corrected tomorrow, so I’ve kept a copy, just in case anyone challenges what I can see on the page right now :-
“…In the climate change debate, both sceptics and proponents have spent a lot of time debating the significance for our own times of two parts of the period. The first is what has been termed the Medieval Warm Period, from between 800 to 1300, the second the Little Ice Age that followed it. Those in the Christopher Booker and George Monbiot camp, one which blames humans for climate change, have spent a lot of heated discussion dwelling on these facts, and the debate has found its way into creative works in surprising ways…”
Last time I looked, Christopher Booker was being awarded a special prize for Global Warming “scepticism” (denial) :-
Poor Philip Hensher, who wrote the article. How could he get so confused ?
Or have I missed something ? Has Christopher Booker repented of all his seemingly misguided hackery, read some Climate Change science, recanted of his mission to promote what appears to be sensationalist nonsense, and become an acolyte of the Church of Global Warming ?
Somebody should find out, I think.