The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science!

Christopher Booker has raised the stakes in the “ClimateGate 2.0” edition of ClimateBall™ in his article in this morning’s edition of the Sunday Telegraph:

It was only the adjusted surface records which showed 2014 to have been “the hottest year on record”. The other two official records, based on satellite measurements, which only go back to 1979, show nothing of the kind.

The international fallout from my two articles has been huge. The second, headed “The fiddling of temperature data has been the biggest science scandal ever”, scored a record 30,000 comments on The Telegraph website. But what is particularly telling has been the silence of GHCN and the compilers of the other surface records in response to requests from Homewood and others for a proper explanation of how and why they had needed to make so many adjustments to the original data.

What is now needed is a meticulous analysis of all the data, to establish just how far these adjustments have distorted the picture the world has been given. Although I cannot yet reveal any details, I gather that a responsible foundation is gathering an expert team to do just that. If the results confirm what has already been unearthed by Homewood and other analysts, from the US to New Zealand, this may indeed turn out to have been the greatest scandal in the history of science.

He is apparently being aided and abetted in his latest outlandish bid by BBC Radio 4 News, who reported on his article as follows in their 07:07:25 review of the Sunday newspapers this morning:

Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph demands a meticulous analysis of the data used to justify the claim that last year was the warmest on record, something he suggests could turn out to be one of the greatest scandals in science. He says a growing number of experts around the world have found that the raw data originally gathered by weather stations was comprehensively adjusted to justify the claim.

This is of course all spectacularly shoddy science (SSS for short) by Homewood, Booker et. al. , as we informed Ian Marsden at the Telegraph Group after Booker’s previous climate bluff was trumped by a long list of climate scientists, who have in fact been anything but “particularly silent” this time around. By way of example, since Ian Marsden evidently hasn’t watched this video yet, here once again is a video by a scientist who has studied such matters, which explains the truth:


Once more unto the breach, dear friends!

Us:

not to mention:

https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon/posts/676792169109481

 

Next I called the Beeb’s complaints number (03700 100 222 – 24 hours, charged as 01/02 geographic numbers) and told Rachel that I wished to register a complaint. I manfully resisted the temptation to emit any expletives, and informed her that the BBC’s apparent belief that Mr. Booker’s article provides some sort of “scientific balance” to Ed Milibands remarks about the need for UK plc to up its “climate change” game is so utterly ludicrous that words had totally failed me.

Rachel wondered if I was talking about this morning’s edition of “Broadcasting House“. I assured her I was not, but it sounds as though I now ought to go away and listen to that from cover to cover!

It’s now the morning of Monday February 23rd 2013. I haven’t received the email confirmation from the BBC that Rachel promised me yet, so…..

BBC Radio 4 Swallows Booker’s Bait

I’ve also just spoken to Ian Marsden of the Telegraph Group once again. He assures me that my complaint about a previous article by Christopher Booker is being dealt with, and suggests that I file another one to ensure that I have “a proper audit trail” in this instance as well.

An IPSO complaints officer suggests following up our previous complaint via said complaints form, so….

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

5 thoughts on “The Greatest Scandal in the History of Science!

  1. Why do people like Christopher Booker keep getting away with this kind of bullshit? There must be some kind of fine for lying and misleading so blatantly.

    1. I wish it were that simple Neven! We are already going through the “official channels”. The first stage is to seek redress directly from the publisher of the “inaccurate and/or misleading” information. We’re in the midst of doing that with regard to Mr. Booker’s previous article about “Fiddling with the temperature records”. Thus far we have been ignored, to the extent that The Telegraph are apparently quite happily ignoring their own complaints procedure:

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/a-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-sunday-telegraph/#comment-196311

      Rest assured I will be calling Ian Marsden once again tomorrow morning. As I keep on saying, with monotonous regularity, we will keep you posted.

  2. How much money is this Booker receiving for spreading this bullshit?

    Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a favorite scientist of climate-change deniers for his theory attributing global warming to variations in the sun’s energy and not human activity, has accepted more than $1.2 million from the fossil-fuel industry in the last decade, the New York Times reports.

    http://t.co/I5TxflW9Pv

    He also failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his published papers.

    1. Re: Booker – Directly or indirectly? This from Peter Oborne, who recently resigned as chief political commentator for The Telegraph:

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

      An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them.

      Re: “SoonGate” – We’ve already complained about Victoria Woollaston’s January 21st article in the Mail Online .

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-science-of-the-david-rose-climate-of-hate-self-interview/#Feb02

      We haven’t heard back yet!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *