Lmao. The superhuman cock-ups of Christopher Booker The journalist makes so many errors that you would be forgiven for thinking he did it deliberately to waste everyone's time "Does Christopher Booker exist? Or is he simply a device invented to waste as much of other people's time as possible? Might he in fact be a computer programme randomly generating nonsense in order to keep scientists, environmentalists and public health campaigners so busy refuting it that they can't get on with what they ought to be doing? I ask because it seems almost impossible that one man could make so many superhuman cock-ups. "Some people claim to have met him, and my friends at Private Eye swear that a man of that name has been working alongside them for 50 years. Veteran journalists assert that there was once a real Christopher Booker, who was capable of intelligent and even penetrating journalism, and that the man who wears his clothes today bears no relationship to the one they once knew. Has he been replaced by a replicant, remotely controlled by an evil genius in a concrete fortress, surrounded by a piranha-stocked moat? Or has he simply been playing to the gallery for so long that he can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction? "In either case, scarcely a week goes by in which he fails to publish at least one excruciating howler. It doesn't matter what the subject is: whether it is asbestos or the European Union, speeding or the family courts, he makes such a remarkable concatenation of mistakes that, if he didn't take himself so seriously, you could almost swear he was doing it deliberately. "This time-wasting exercise would be best ignored if it were not for two things: that the Sunday Telegraph continues to give him a platform for this rubbish, and that his cock-ups have consequences. "Much of his journalism consists of the reckless endangerment of the public. In a long series of articles he has falsely claimed that the danger from white asbestos is insignificant. To support his contention that innocent parents are being harassed by over-zealous officials, he relayed a partisan account which served to minimise and dismiss the serious injuries inflicted on a small baby [see paragraph 185 onwards]. The judge pointed out Booker's "significant factual errors and omissions". More >>
The Guardian dedicates an entire article attacking a journalist who works for a rival newspaper. Rather than presenting any facts to refute Christopher Booker's assertions in his articles about global warming and other topics - they simply go into attack mode. Even sinking so far to cite the assertions made by the other side in a lawsuit which he eventually completely prevailed in (within context of his role as a journalist). Note that Mr. Booker's articles in this case focused on over-reach by British social services and cases of forced adoption. How would you like it if you took your baby to the hospital with an injury, and the hospital staff reported you as parents to the police who immediately arrested you and afterwards they had another family forcefully adopt your child. How would you like this to happen to you as parents even if their never was any previous injury to the baby or complaint about child abuse? How would you like it in the end if the courts cleared you as parents of any abuse to the child, but still the system would not give your child back? Wouldn't you like a journalist like Christopher Booker to stand up for you when you are completely abused by the legal system? Isn't this what a journalist is supposed to do as the fourth estate and stop overreach by government with zealous reporting on the sins and omissions of government officials?
It appears no one person has time to counter all of Booker's nonsense, because it takes more time to present evidence than it does to simply lie. Booker makes Enron look like a paragon of virtue. Anyway, debunking is not hard to find among other authors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html
In the outer atmosphere CO2 actually does block some of the suns emr from penetrating the atmosphere. But by a different mechanism than the greenhouse effect. As a greenhouse gas CO2 should be quite ineffective because it has only one active fundamental vibrational mode, an asymmetric stretch, and it has a low concentration. Water is even less effective as an IR absorber but there is so much more of it. But water overall is far more effective at moderating temperature, and not just by the greenhouse mechanism. Compared to water CO2s effect on surface temperature must be nearly negligible if not totally negligible. Only partially transparent actually. It is transparent to visible sunlight. But the visible portion of the solar spectrum is only a portion of the total emr emitted by the fusion reaction going on in the sun.
Looks like Ricters source was just more b.s. by Dave Burton, www.sealevel.info, Feb. 5, 2015 Last updated Feb. 9, 2015 Globally averaged land surface temperatures, 1900-2014 (GHCN) Christopher Booker thinks NOAA is distorting global land temperature data to inflate reported global warming, and fan the flames of climate alarmism. Dr. Kevin Cowtan contends Booker is wrong. Dr. Cowtan trusts that NOAA's adjustments are justified and correct, and he also says they are too minor to be questionable. “Why would they do that?” he asks at the end of his video, meaning why would anyone commit fraud for an inconsequential difference in the result? I don't know with certainty whether or not NOAA's adjustments are all justified and correct, but I found Dr. Cowtan's argument unpersuasive, for two reasons. The first reason is that he's assuming that fraudulent intent is the only possible explanation for biased results, but it isn't. If the results are biased to exaggerate warming, it could also be due to confirmation bias or other error, by people with the best of intentions. However, Dr. Cowtan's argument also depends on the adjustments being inconsequential, and they are not. I digitized the endpoints of one of Dr. Cowtan's graphs using WebPlotDigitizerand found that his own analysis proves NOAA's adjustments are far from inconsequential. By comparing the adjusted and unadjusted versions of Dr. Cowtan's graphs of globally averaged land surface temperatures, I found that NOAA's adjustments increased the reported warming by 35%. 35% is not inconsequential. Here are Mr. Booker's recent articles complaining about NOAA's temperature adjustments: The Telegraph: 24 January, 2015 Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming “Something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists,” writes Christopher Booker The Telegraph: 7 February, 2015 The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever “New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming,” writes Christopher Booker Here's Dr. Cowtan's video critique of Booker's 24 January, 2015 article: NOAA Paraguay data: “A quick response to an article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.” 26 January, 2015 This is Dr. Cowtan's graph (at 3:45 in the video), plus my comments (in green): (click on the graph for a larger version) This is a spreadsheet with endpoint data digitized from Dr. Cowatan's graph: http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_global_land_digitized_temperatures.xls This is a spreadsheet with decadal data digitized from Dr. Cowatan's graph: http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_global_land_digitized_decadal1.xls The digitized image, WebPlotDigitizer callibration data, and notes are here: http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html
Global Temperature Report: January 2015 – not much change from December Anthony Watts / 5 days ago February 4, 2015 From University of Alabama, Hunstville: Northern non-tropics see warmest January Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade January temperatures (preliminary) Global composite temp.: +0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. Tropics: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. December temperatures (revised): Global Composite: +0.32 C above 30-year average Northern Hemisphere: +0.47 C above 30-year average Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C above 30-year average Tropics: +0.30 C above 30-year average (All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/...t-january-2015-not-much-change-from-december/
This Skeptical Science link attempting to "debunk" Booker - only serves to reinforce that Booker is completely correct about the altering of the temperatures and it shortly will become a significant issue for those promoting "climate change".