Who said cutting back on CO2 emissions to combat dangerous climate change is the most costly blunder in history and is that right?

Answer 1

These words come from the book on climate change by London Daily Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker written in 2009 called "the Real Global Warming Disaster". In that controversial book the author strongly contended that the International Panel on climate Change's computer-model projections "were being disproved by what was actually happening to world temperatures" and he cited attempts to conceal that fact by certain politicians. Booker also explained in clear detail that not one of those predictions being made by Al Gore and others in the days when, as he put it, "the warming hysteria was at its height" was actually coming true. In his words "the real global warming disaster were - green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills"

So you ask is Christipher Booker right in what he alleges? Nobody can be very certain about what is really happening to world climate; But official world weather data from the World Meteorological Organization during the first 13 years of this century appear to indicate Mr Booker may well be right. The scientific facts seem to be there was indeed a modest temperature rise in the late 20th century up to 1998. But increasing numbers of climatologists and other top scientists are now maintain that appears to have been just a continuation of the warming that began 200 years ago as the world naturally emerged from those centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. But statistical evidence is the 0.5C rise between 1976 and 1998 was no greater than the 0.5C rise between 1910 and 1940 with 35 years of cooling between them. That means that the net rise in the past century has only been 0.8 degrees C, so it does seem nations like UK and other nations in the EU seeking to cut back on CO2 emissions could be as Booker alleges - "the most costly scientific blunder in history".

The politicians who control the Propaganda have seemingly continued to try to deceive world opinion into believing that "95% of scientists are certain that dangerous global warming is happening and is man made". The true facts appear to be that is only the opinion of Green lobby extremists like Greenpeace and Friend s of the Earth and today increasing numbers of other scientists who at one time supported the UN Panel on Climate Change seem to be now stating the UN Panel's conclusions appear to be grossly flawed . It seems an increasing percentage of the world's scientists think that too. One indicaton of that is a study of scientists' opinions organised by oism.org/project which was signed by no less than 40,000 very well qualified scientists including 9,000 with PhDs in a range of science disciplines stated

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate".

There have also been calls for The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" to be paid back on grounds that almost everything Gore claimed to be happening in his film "an inconvenient truth" seems to have been proved grossly flawed. Please see the WikiAnswers question

Is Global Warming a scam

which exposes many of the glaring mistakes Gore made in that movie which people believed at that time but which subsequent experiences and data have revealed to be flawed.

Worse still there is alarming evidence of deliberate attempts by certain US government organisations to falsify the facts with intent to deceive the world on the scientific facts. For example NASA researchers have been caught out improperly manipulating data in order to claim 2005 as "the warmest year on record" when it was not. Their lie was discovered by meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman who highlighted this in a US TV documentary broadcasted on KUSI-TV in which together with computer expert Michael Smith and One of world's most highly acclaimed Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo proved beyong reasonable doubt just how there had been extensive manipulation of the temperature data by both the U.S. Government's primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. The US government organizations did this apparently give the appearance of very much warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations apparently to try to support Al Gore's political interests .

That followed reports in 1999 in the UK that E mails from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit also indicated that scientists in the UK similarly manipulated data to try to bolster their flawed argument that global warming is really being caused by human actions. exposing the tricks they had used to massage temperature statistics to "hide the decline" in world temperatures that have really occurred since 1996 seemingly trying to deceive the world that global warming has continued to occur when it has not.

The very latest evidence that Booker may be is that among the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a paper written by one of world's top scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat who has for over 50 years been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics, was for seven years CERN Research Director and who has received the award in recognition of his outstanding career at the CEA, at LBL (Berkeley) and at CERN from 1964 onwards states inoquivocably to the Commitee 65 prominent United nations IPCC authors have abandoned "scientific rigour." He is implying they too seem to have been trying to misrepresent true scientific evidence.