IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Temperatures

[Popol Vuh]

When someone has to resort to cheating you know their side is the wrong side of the argument.

London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

-snip-

This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

-snip-

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

[w4rma]

1. The correct term is Global Climate Change, not Global Warming for a reason. (nt)

[rawtribe]

2. Mountains and molehills

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/mountains_out_of_molehills.php#more

[Lifetimedem]

3. I have never bought global warming

Too many big question marks like colder and snowier winters and cool springs and summers

I also remember the "big scare" about a new ice age and global cooling some years ago.

I think it has become PC to quake in terror at the possibility that our aerosol cans are killing us.

The earth has always had periods of warming and cooling, man just was not recording it.

Recently I read of one of the stations monitoring the temp had had a blacktop parking lot paved around it, thus causing higher readings..

I believe we should stop polluting the earth and air, but not because it is causing global warming, but because it is the responsible thing to do

[drm604]

4. New ice age.

I also remember the "big scare" about a new ice age and global cooling some years ago.

That's odd, because I remember no such thing. I believe there were a few journal articles suggesting the possibly of global cooling, after which the idea was rejected by the scientific community at large. There may or may not have been a few articles in the mainstream press, but I certainly don't remember anything amounting to a "big scare".

What exactly do you remember? Did I sleep through the whole thing? :sarcasm:

[glitch]

7. Big scare about an ice age which didn't happen is a RW talking point, my brother uses it

so my guess is it came from either Fox or Rush, his two sole sources of information.

[drm604]

9. I'm aware of that.

I just like to challenge people who post such nonsense.

[Popol Vuh]

8. "That's odd, because I remember no such thing."

Here's a couple of flash backs from the 70's.

The program "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZKtJSlhFsA

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NimH5w_fzM

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2yHACNPcL4



And here's a News Week article quoting NOAA & NAS

[drm604]

10. As I said...

There may have been a few articles, but it wasn't widely accepted in the scientific community, and I don't consider Leonard Nimoy a scientific authority, even if he did play Spock. As I recall, "In Search of" also did episodes on things like UFOs and ghosts.

I lived through the 70's and I certainly don't remember any widespread "big scare".

[Popol Vuh]

11. You asked saying you don't remember, so I provided some quick examples.

Nothing more to it than that. n/t

[drm604]

14. I appreciate the examples.

Maybe I was unclear. I was saying that I didn't remember a big scare, not that I didn't remember anything about it at all. The point is that the fleeting discussion of the idea of global cooling never amounted to anything and was rejected by the scientific community. New ideas arise in the scientific community all of the time. Many, perhaps most, of them are rejected upon further examination.

Global warming deniers constantly bring up the global cooling thing as if it somehow adds something to their arguments. It doesn't. The interest in and evidence for the idea was never at any point anywhere near that for global warming.

[Hannah Bell]

33. I have a friend who read/saw information about cooling in the 70s, &

it depressed the heck out of her.

Whether there was scientific consensus or not, the info was in circulation in seemingly "authoritative" media (e.g. Newsweek).

So no surprise if folks become skeptical after a while.

[drm604]

37. The problem is that GW deniers are trying to discredit the current science

by making it sound like the scientific community was just as certain of an opposite conclusion in the 70s. They weren't. Articles in the popular press do not equal scientific consensus.

Wrong headed speculation in the popular press in the past is not a good reason to be skeptical of real scientific consensus in the present.

[jpak]

21. Horseshit: "Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was"

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_‘consensus’_of_1970s_never_was

Now, new research also skewers the global warming skeptics’ claim that, in the 1970s, scientists believed that an ice age was imminent. Researchers of the day had discovered that Earth had been cooling since the 1940s. Some believed that continued increases in the amount of planet-cooling aerosols kicked up or emitted by human activity — dust and smog, for example —could easily tip the planet into an ever-deepening cycle of cooling, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out. That wave of concern was obviously a false alarm, the skeptics note, so maybe today’s scientists are equally mistaken about global warming.

Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.

The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”

When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.


But even a cursory review of 1970s media accounts shows that there was no consensus about global cooling among journalists, either, Peterson says. In May 1975, the headline of a New York Times article warned that “major cooling may be ahead.” Three months later, another headline in the same paper—atop a feature written by the same reporter—stated that two recent journal articles “counter view that cold period is due.”

<more>

Right wing deniers always bring up this non-peer reviewed 1975 Newsweek article as "proof" that global warming is a "fraud".

The only frauds in this issue are the deniers.

[Popol Vuh]

23. Not sure who you're referring to as a right winger

Because I am as liberal as they come. Just because I don't exhibit dogmatic behavior toward politicized issues certainly doesn't change that fact. As for this Newsweek article, as I've pointed out, it quotes NOAA and NAS which is the reason why I posted it.

I post this and the other threads I posted a couple of days ago on this issue to illustrate that it appears that climate change is due to solar cycles and CO2 levels follow (as in lagging behind) increased temperatures. This poses a serious threat to the CO2 theorists and all of their funding.

As the data posted in thread illustrates: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4531010&mesg_id=4531118

[jpak]

24. "It appears that climate change is due to solar cycle" - more horseshit

no. it. is. not.

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

<end>

Natural forcings cannot account for the recent warming.

period.

[jpak]

25. "This poses a serious threat to the CO2 theorists " More horseshit

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897

Nicholas J. Shackleton (2000) The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity. Science 1 Vol. 289. no. 5486, pp. 1897 - 1902

Absract

The deep-sea sediment oxygen isotopic composition (18O) record is dominated by a 100,000-year cyclicity that is universally interpreted as the main ice-age rhythm. Here, the ice volume component of this 18O signal was extracted by using the record of 18O in atmospheric oxygen trapped in Antarctic ice at Vostok, precisely orbitally tuned. The benthic marine 18O record is heavily contaminated by the effect of deep-water temperature variability, but by using the Vostok record, the 18O signals of ice volume, deep-water temperature, and additional processes affecting air 18O (that is, a varying Dole effect) were separated. At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

<end>

News digest of this paper...same issue of Science


CLIMATE: Ice, Mud Point to CO2 Role in Glacial Cycle

Richard A. Kerr

The rhythmic stretching of Earth's orbit seems to drive glacial cycles, but how this feeble "orbital variation" could cascade through the climate system of air, land, water, and ice to produce the monstrous climate shifts of the ice ages has remained a mystery. On page 1897 of this issue of Science, a paleoceanographer finds a likely strongman to transmit and enforce the orbital variations' demands: carbon dioxide. Comparing records preserved in deep-sea muds with those in antarctic ice, he finds that orbital variations may muster carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere, and the resulting waxing and waning of greenhouse warming may drive the glacial cycle.

Oh yeah and this thingy...

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

PETIT J. R. (1) ; JOUZEL J. (2) ; RAYNAUD D. (1) ; BARKOV N. I. (3) ; BARNOLA J.-M. (1) ; BASILE I. (1) ; BENDER M. (4) ; CHAPPELLAZ J. (1) ; DAVIS M. (5) ; DELAYGUE G. (2) ; DELMOTTE M. (1) ; KOTLYAKOV V. M. (6) ; LEGRAND M. (1) ; LIPENKOV V. Y. (3) ; LORIUS C. (1) ; PEPIN L. (1) ; RITZ C. (1) ; SALTZMAN E. (5) ; STIEVENARD M. (2) ;

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Nature: 1999, vol. 399, no6735, pp. 429-436

Abstract

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station In East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the Ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glaclal-interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospherio burdens of these two Important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

[jpak]

40. Study confirms strong link between CO2 and climate over 70,000 years

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0911-climate.html

Analysis of ice core samples from Greenland show a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and abrupt changes in climate, reports a paper published in Science.

Comparing records of carbon dioxide concentrations, Antarctic surface temperatures, and Greenland's climate between 20,000 and 90,000 years ago, Jinho Ahn and Edward J. Brook found a close link between past climate change and CO2 levels. The researchers say the findings "appear to confirm the validity of the types of computer models that are used to project a warmer climate in the future," according to a statement from Oregon State University.

"We've identified a consistent and coherent pattern of carbon dioxide fluctuations from the past and are able to observe the correlation of this to temperature in the northern and southern hemispheres," said Ed Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University. "This is a global, interconnected system of ocean and atmosphere, and data like these help us better understand how it works."


Ahn and Brook say their work confirms that before humans, atmospheric carbon dioxide was largely controlled by oceanic processes. Now that anthropogenic activities are pumping significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and potentially slowing marine overturning circulation, oceans may contribute positive feedback to the system, further increasing carbon dioxide levels, they write. The development could drive rapid shifts in climate.

<more>

This poses a serious threat to the CO2 denialists....

[Oak2004]

31. I was working for NOAA at that time

and asked my boss (a climate scientist: I was just a number cruncher) about the brief "cooling fad" (which existed nearly exclusively in the media for a few months). He said there was nothing to it.

You'll get a very different response if you ask a climate scientist about global warming today.

[ChazII]

17. In the middle 70's

my teachers were telling me that the next ice age was coming in my life time.

[drm604]

19. Some teachers tell people that evolution is just a theory.

We're not talking about some teachers. We're talking about the consensus of the scientific community. There was no large consensus anywhere near that which exists concerning anthropocentric global warming.

[Lifetimedem]

27. I don't know if you were sleeping

I only know that there were articles all over the place with dire threats of a new ice age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[drm604]

36. Maybe it was because

I tend to read things like Scientific American or Nature for science info rather than News Week etc. Articles in the popular press do not equal widespread scientific acceptance.

Here's a quote from your Wikipedia reference:

Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference<9>). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

[jpak]

18. "it has become PC to quake in terror at the possibility that our aerosol cans are killing us"

CFCs from aerosol sprays and refrigerants ARE thinning the stratospheric ozone layer - in the Antarctic and at mid-latitudes.

And it has a measurable deleterious impact on Antarctic ecosystems.

Nothing "PC" about it.

Oh yeah - CFCs arre potent greenhouse gases as well.

[Lifetimedem]

28. Did you read the article

It talked about the glacial formations in the artic..

There is no way to prove that hair spray is thining anything ...it is a THEORY

[jpak]

30. CFC aerosols harm the ozone layer - they are not the primary cause of anthropogenic global warming

Apple and oranges

James M. Russell III*, Mingzhao Luo†, Ralph J. Cicerone † & Lance E. Deaver* (1996) Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget. Nature 379, pages 526 - 529. doi:10.1038/379526a0


OBSERVED increases in concentrations of chlorine in the stratosphere1–7 have been widely implicated in the depletion of lower-stratospheric ozone over the past two decades8–14. The present concentration of stratospheric chlorine is more than five times that expected from known natural 'background' emissions from the oceans and biomass burning15–18, and the balance has been estimated to be dominantly anthropogenic in origin, primarily due to the breakdown products of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)19,20. But despite the wealth of scientific data linking chlorofluorocarbon emissions to the observed chlorine increases, the political sensitivity of the ozone-depletion issue has generated a re-examination of the evidence21,22. Here we report a four-year global time series of satellite observations of hydrogen chloride (HC1) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) in the stratosphere, which shows conclusively that chlorofluorocarbon releases—rather than other anthropogenic or natural emissions—are responsible for the recent global increases in stratospheric chlorine concentrations. Moreover, all but a few per cent of observed stratospheric chlorine amounts can be accounted for by known natural and anthropogenic tropospheric emissions. Altogether, these results implicate the chlorofluorocarbons beyond reasonable doubt as dominating ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere.

<end>

FACT

[dansolo]

22. Aerosol cans were causing ozone depletion, not global warming

Before you so eagerly dismiss global warming, you should at least read up on the basic facts of the issues. Aerosol cans have almost nothing to do with global warming. It was the chlorofluorocarbons that were used as propellants that were depleting the ozone in the upper atmosphere. But aerosol can propellants haven't been an issue for many years now, as different propellants are in use now.

[Lifetimedem]

29. I know that

I have COPD and now am forced to use an ineffective rescue inhaler (in the last 2 years...not many years) because of the panic ...

The "thinning " of the ozone layer is connected by scientists like the one that lied on the temps to the warming .

In ten years some will take credit for saving the earth by eliminating things like my rescue inhaler.. when there was never a problem to begin with IMO.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. So you refute three Nobel Prize Winners of Chemistry and their work

on the causes of Ozone depletion.
Crutzen, Molina and Rowland

Molina of MIT, Rowland, Crutzen win Nobel in chemistry
October 12, 1995

Three environmental scientists who "have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences" were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry Wednesday for showing that human activities such as spray cans and air conditioners can imperil the fragile ozone layer that protects the world from the dangerous ultraviolet radiation of the sun.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the prize to Professor Mario Molina, 52, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.; Professor F. Sherwood Rowland, 68, of the University of California at Irvine, Cal., and Professor Paul Crutzen, 62, a Dutch citizen who is a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. They will share the prize money of $1 million.

It is the first time the Nobel Prize has recognized research into man-made impacts on the environment. The discoveries led to an international environmental treaty which by the end of this year bans the production of industrial chemicals that reduce the ozone layer.

In its announcement, the Swedish Academy wrote that "if all the ozone in the atmosphere were compressed to a pressure corresponding to that at the earth's surface, the layer would be only 3 mm <1/8 inch> thick....The thin ozone layer has proved to be an Achilles heel that may be seriously injured by apparently moderate changes in the composition of the atmosphere."

Ozone--a gas with molecules consisting of three oxygen atoms--is highly dispersed. The highest contents of ozone exist in the ozone layer that is 15 to 50 km (9 to 31 miles) above the earth. Without the protective layer of ozone, animals and plants could not exist on land. Significant depletion of ozone can cause increased skin cancer, cataracts and immune system damage for humans, and mutations in many species.

In 1970, Crutzen showed that nitrogen oxides accelerate the rate of reduction of ozone. The Academy noted that another threat to the ozone layer came from the supersonic aircraft planned in the 1970s, which would be capable of releasing nitrogen oxides right in the middle of the ozone layer at altitudes of 20 km (12 miles).

In 1974, Molina was a postdoctoral fellow in Professor Rowland's laboratory at the University of California at Irvine. Molina was the lead author on their paper, in the British magazine Nature, of their research on the threat to the ozone layer from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases or freons, which were being used as propellants in spray cans, as the cooling medium in refrigerators and air conditioners, and in plastic foams. Their prediction of significant depletion of the ozone layer over a period of decades "created an enormous attention," the Academy said.

"Many were critical of Molina's and Rowland's calculations, but yet more were seriously concerned by the possibility of a depleted ozone layer. Today we know that they were right in all essentials. It was to turn out that they had even underestimated the risk," the Academy said.

Their research predicting an ozone "hole" laid the groundwork for its discovery in 1985 over the South Pole by British scientist Joseph Farman and colleagues. Ozone depletion around most of the globe "is caused chiefly by ozone reacting chemically with chlorine and bromine from industrially manufactured gases," the Academy said.

The scientific research by Crutzen, Molina, Rowland and others led to the 1987 United Nations' Montreal Protocol, which will ban the most dangerous gases from 1996 on. "Given compliance with the prohibitions, the ozone layer should gradually begin to heal after the turn of the century. Yet it will take at least 100 years before it has fully recovered," the Academy said.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1995/chemnobel.html

[Oak2004]

34. The "last two years" is because inhalers were the last to be phased out

Most sources were phased out many years ago.

Some of the replacement inhalers are crap at actually delivering meds to real people with breathing problems. Others are not. Try other brands.

And yes, there was a problem. A real big problem. Other than liking your old inhaler, what basis do you have for claiming no such problem existed?

[jpak]

35. "The "thinning " of the ozone layer is connected by scientists like the one that lied"

Horseshit

Farman, J. C., B. G. Gardiner, and J. D. Shanklin. 1985. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315: 207-10.

Recent attempts <1,2> to consolidate assessments of the effect of human activities on stratospheric ozone (03) using one-dimensional models for 30deg. N have suggested that perturbations of total 03 will remain small for at least the next decade. Results from such models are often accepted by default as global estimates <3>. The inadequacy of this approach is here made evident by observations that the spring values of total O3 in Antarctica have now fallen considerably. The circulation in the lower stratosphere is apparently unchanged, and possible chemical causes must be considered. We suggest that the very low temperatures which prevail from midwinter until several weeks after the spring equinox make the Antarctic stratosphere uniquely sensitive to growth of inorganic chlorine, ClX, primarily by the effect of this growth on the NO2/NO ratio. This, with the height distribution of UV irradiation peculiar to the polar stratosphere, could account for the O3 losses observed.

<end>

James M. Russell III*, Mingzhao Luo†, Ralph J. Cicerone † & Lance E. Deaver* (1996) Satellite confirmation of the dominance of chlorofluorocarbons in the global stratospheric chlorine budget. Nature 379, pages 526 - 529. doi:10.1038/379526a0


OBSERVED increases in concentrations of chlorine in the stratosphere1–7 have been widely implicated in the depletion of lower-stratospheric ozone over the past two decades8–14. The present concentration of stratospheric chlorine is more than five times that expected from known natural 'background' emissions from the oceans and biomass burning15–18, and the balance has been estimated to be dominantly anthropogenic in origin, primarily due to the breakdown products of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)19,20. But despite the wealth of scientific data linking chlorofluorocarbon emissions to the observed chlorine increases, the political sensitivity of the ozone-depletion issue has generated a re-examination of the evidence21,22. Here we report a four-year global time series of satellite observations of hydrogen chloride (HC1) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) in the stratosphere, which shows conclusively that chlorofluorocarbon releases—rather than other anthropogenic or natural emissions—are responsible for the recent global increases in stratospheric chlorine concentrations. Moreover, all but a few per cent of observed stratospheric chlorine amounts can be accounted for by known natural and anthropogenic tropospheric emissions. Altogether, these results implicate the chlorofluorocarbons beyond reasonable doubt as dominating ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere.

<end>

[ColbertWatcher]

5. "When someone has to resort to using the Telegraph ...

... you know their side is the wrong side of the argument."

[drm604]

6. Cheating?

This strikes me as probably being a mistake rather than cheating. One mistake doesn't undo all of the previous research and evidence.

[icnorth]

12. You mean this Christopher Booker, the one who wrote the article?

The same Christoper Booker who uses false assertions and false scientific claims? The same Christopher Booker who repeatedly endorsed the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle to debunk the dangers of asbestos. That Christoper Booker?:puke: The Daily Telegraph?:puke:


Booker's articles in The Daily Telegraph on asbestos and also on global warming have been challenged by George Monbiot in an article in The Guardian newspaper <1>.
Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" <2> were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).
Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act <3> of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".<4>.
Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."<5>.
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal<6> after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"<7>.
In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal<8> after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". <9>.
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"<10>. In the article<11>, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton<12>, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Thank YOU!

Asbestos "same as talcum powder"? Jeez, talk about bungling obvious facts.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Yet this OP keeps posting intellectual dishonest crap

that gets debunked in all of his threads.

This is getting tiresome.

[clu]

39. .

i wonder what may be in store later this week

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. slant is slant.. no matter which direction

this article is more than 'a bit' slanted.
Hansen is reponsible for 'the scare train' re: climate change?
Obviously the author has some bias.

The 'hockey stick' hasn't been 'debunked.. it's been questioned.
McIntyre's study was published in 'Energy and Environemt' - a journal that has been specifically left out of the ISI list of journals.
IE: it's not seen as an non-biased peer reviewed source and generally isn't quoted in science.

The author goes on to question the qualifications of Dr Pachauri because he isn't a climatologist by training.. yet omits the fact that neither of the authors of the study that 'debunked the hockeystick graph' were climatoligists.
Kind of lacking in the 'analysis' department.

The only thing this 'gave pause for thought' was how Christopher Booker got a job at the Telegraph .. and how this got past the editorial review board.

[jpak]

16. Deniers caught spreading bullshit - again

*yawn*

[Zhade]

20. London Telegraph

London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
London Telegraph

[amborin]

38. no facts in your article, just a right-wing opinion piece in a 3rd rate rag, not even a real article