New Booker Book: The Real Global Warming Disaster
Christopher Booker has a new book out entitled: The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?
Available from Amazon UK here:
More from Booker himself here. (1)
Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are Not Collapsing
Read the AIG News paper here. (1)
Global Warming Ate My Data
We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests.
The Register (3)
Climate Depot's Arctic Fact Sheet
Climate Depot Arctic Fact Sheet (for additional updates on the Arctic see new articles tagged Arctic) (0)
October 16th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Hi!
Outstanding site; I`m bookmarking it for future reference.
I don`t know if you remember me, but I used a comment you made at CCNET a while back as the basis for an article in the American Thinker. You`ve always been my favorite poster at CCNET, and I`m looking forward to some outstanding things here! I`ve already been quite pleased with what I`m seeing!
Cheers!
October 16th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Many thanks, I remember. I’m having a bit of trouble displaying the blog in Internet Explorer, but it works fine in Firefox.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hmm, odd. At any rate, you have made a most auspicious start with this site, and I`ll put you up on my blogroll. You`re going to do great things here!
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 am
Ozone Al is running one of the best scams of the last century. The wild west medicine sellers have nothing on him. Here is the scam, make a movie depicting the earth as warming to the detriment of the population. Form a company that sells carbon offsets. Market this as a way to correct the global warming. Yes Ozone Al is a partner in a company that sells carbon offsets. And somebody said he was stupid, not. Just remember “nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public”.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:22 am
It’s a recovery from the third smallest area on record. It’s been recovering since 2007 but is still well below average. it’s not like you should expect straight-line declines year-to-year.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Yes – the smallest in the VERY SHORT satellite record since 1980. Furthermore, the reasons included unusual atmospheric and ocean circulations.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Is it your stated position that the trend from 2007-2009 will continue?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:07 am
No one knows, including me, but alarmism based on 2007 isn’t wise. The Arctic has likely had less sea ice in past warm periods during the current interglacial.
You seem to have missed this recent post:
Place Your Bets for a Sea Ice-Free Arctic
Al Gore says: 2012
The Catlin/WWF Ice Survey Stunt says as little as 10 years: 2019 (to 2029)
The Met Office says: 2060 to 2080
Who out there is up for a trip to Al Gore’s mansion in summer 2012 to celebrate him being correct, or to commiserate with him for being wrong?
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/10/place-your-bets-for-a-sea-ice-free-arctic/
November 24th, 2009 at 6:14 am
The “alarmism” isn’t based on 2007.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:23 am
There is reliable evidence of a decline since at least 1961. You guys are observing a two-year trend and taking it out of context.
Al Gore has nothing to do with this discussion btw. He’s a douche bag, too Just like you guys. you’re all a bunch of ideologues spewing forth bad sscience on both sides of the debate.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:41 am
No, but 2007 was the launch pad for ice-free predictions.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:46 am
What about 20th Century declines prior to 1961? – neither those or the current decline demonstrates a human-caused warming.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:09 am
You’re right, however, the decline has been accelerating in recent decades which is some evidence of man-made conditions. Again, you’ve taken a two-year trend out of context. Likewise, forecasts based on 2007 alone would also be flawed. and I would repeat that Al Gore is a giant Douche Bag. Look, I’m not an enviro nut. I think that the best way to cut carbon emissions (if people want too) is to use natural gas-fired generation (not wind power). There is plenty of natural gas in the arctic that we could discover and drill. And there is plenty of natural gas in the U.S. as well.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:18 am
Btw, I don’t know the extent of man-made contributions to global warming. Nobody does. It may very well be extremely minimal. But I’m tired of the pseudoscience from both sides of the debate. I’ll acknowledge that we are taking huge risks if we engage on a path dependent process and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on reducing carbon emissions by building wind power and huge transmission lines. And all of this risk is shifted to the ratepayers and society instead of being allocated to the transmission owners and wind developers.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:21 am
I’m not opposed to reducing C02 emissions at a pace dictated by technology – I’m opposed to unachievable, arbitrary targets on arbitrary time scales.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:34 am
No one really knows how large or small the man-made contribution is and it isn’t restricted to CO2 – there’s the likes of black carbon/aerosols. Also, land use change can account for up to 50% of observed warming in some studies. So my view is that CO2 isn’t a big problem, it’s also a resource, and current climate change remains within the boundaries of natural variability, including glaciers, sea ice, temperature etc.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:02 am
Yes, and efforts to reduce CO2 may result in more NOX emissions which wouldn’t be a good thing. I agree with you on most of your points in your last post. Sorry for calling you a d-bag.
It would be interesting if develop mkts for CO2 rather than taxing emissions. I know Norway has an emissions trading program, but there is also a market for CO2 which also attaches a price to the CO2 – they use it to inject into oil and gas fields to enhance recovery.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Emissions trading just makes money for business and banks by trading thin air – the rest of us pay. The EU emissions trading scheme costs UK consumers £3 billion per year:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/10/eu-emissions-trading-scheme-costs-consumers-3-billion-a-year/
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
I agree. I meant to say that it would interesting if we could find profitable uses for CO2 – a market for CO2 – like using it to enhance oil recovery. I think in Norway oil companies are willing to pay more for the CO2 than it costs to capture and transport it. This would be difficult in the U.S. however because the cost of transport would be much higher.
I don’t support a carbon tax or cap and trade – I think it is too risky at this point given that we really don’t know enough about the long-term impact of carbon emissions.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
There is no good way to do a cost-benefit analysis because we don’t know enough about the benefits of reducing carbon. Here’s an interesting fact: Germans sometimes pay more than 22 cents per kWh for electricity – that is almost three times higher than many parts of the U.S. The risk is too high.