Christopher Booker : Reheated Tosh ?

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 :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7981979/A-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-IPCC.html

“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 :-

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/ipcc-troubles-context-media-coverage/

“…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 ?

2 thoughts on “Christopher Booker : Reheated Tosh ?”

  1. Why am I sceptical of CAGW? The behaviour of activists does not help exactly.

    Some of the more CAGW actvists behaviour is going to get more like this, more extreme, as they see the goals slip away. (this is OFFICIAL, what will the extreme independant activists do)

    GreenPEACE Video…
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/videos/Angry-Kid-/

    I wonder if this child ‘believes’ this…
    Seriously, for Greenpeace to have come to this…. (3 years old now)

    Use of children, Again. Saying amongst other gems.
    “For or Against”

    “friend or enemy”

    “The lines are drawn, You have to choose sides”

    “this is the last time I will be talking to you”

    “entire countries will disappear, famine, world wide epidemics, life expectancy will be lower”

    “you are for my future, or you are against it”

    I thought it was just an activist at work, but shocked to see it is offical Greenpeace…!!!!

    Official Greenpeace video… – Angry Kid

    340,000 plus views on youtube,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4&feature=player_embedded

  2. Agreed – this is where people cross the line and become what is labelled “eco fascists”. This Greenpeace video is laughable in that when shown to young children they get scared.

    When those same young children grow up and do their own research, they get angry. They get angry because they can see the lies of the advocacy of AGW=Catastrophe.

    You would think the likes of Greenpeace would learn from its mistakes but it does not seem to. It’s video of office workers bullying and spitting into the drink of a 4×4 driving fellow worker was the final nail in the coffin of the Anti 4×4 numpties, tho a couple of really bad winters where Dr’s, paramedics and other help agencies had to call on local 4×4 drivers just to get about also helped squash the lies and spin about modern all wheel drive systems.

    The point is that the public saw what was real (4×4’s doing what they are designed to do and doing it well, and that without them, local services in such bad weather would have been decimated) and thought “what are these numpty anti 4×4 idiots on about?”

    The same is happening with the extremist alarmist advocacy of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate destabilisation.

    And the more people question the “belief” the more strident and extremist the response from the “believer”. Which results in more people saying “hang on a mo! – that is not right!!”

    Hammering the nails into your own coffin lid is quite some achievement. But this is the one thing that the alarmists are being rather good at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.