By Paul Homewood
It is worth returning to that letter in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, criticising Booker’s global warming groupthink article:
SIR – I agree with Christopher Booker that people tend to adopt the views of their “group” without checking facts or using critical thinking.
Nevertheless, his article contains inaccuracies. A big one: that climate change theory was immediately hailed as a scientific consensus. In fact, it has been challenged, disagreed with, tested, refined, disagreed with some more and, after two decades, a sort of scientific consensus has emerged. However, Mr Booker uses the scientific uncertainty, and the one case of deliberate misuse of data, to try to argue against the facts.
Mr Booker seems to be saying that a small group of scientists have pulled off a hoax of massive proportions that flies in the face of the “real” data, which he doesn’t present. He says that the Intergovernmental…
View original post 722 more words
By Paul Homewood
Booker skewers Monbiot in his column today:
Although The Guardian’s George Monbiot waxes famously excitable over anything he can blame on global warming, he got carried away even more than usual last week. As Britain suffered from blizzards and a deep freeze, he noted a recent spike in temperatures in the Arctic, taking them up to 63F (35C) above average. “This is more than just a temperature anomaly,” he tweeted, “it is an off-the-scale event. Why is the Arctic meltdown not headline news in every paper?”
It did not take long for our expert friend Paul Homewood, on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, to track down one answer to that question. He published a graph and charts from the Danish Meteorological Institute showing a similar temperature spike in 1976 which also brought March snow to Britain.
Far from being “crazy”, “weird” and “unprecedented”, as is claimed by various scientists…
View original post 162 more words