The climate denial machine has gotten desperate. Among the many signs is that the British newspaper Sunday Telegraph still publishes the work of Christopher Booker. And Booker is still making arguments like this one (referring to the U.K. met office, scroll down to find it):
Only gradually since 2007, when none of them predicted a temporary fall in global temperatures of 0.7 degrees, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century, have they been prepared to concede that CO2 was not the real story.
First of all, CO2 is the real story.
More to the point, Booker’s narrative about a “fall in global temperatures of 0.7 degrees” is such a blatant case of misleading cherry-picking, even Dr. John Christy (whom I consider another denier) couldn’t swallow it. He wrote quite a rebuttal of the notion that it was meaningful on none other than the WUWT blog.
Which is doubly ironic, because it’s likely Booker got his “fall in global temperatures” from another desperate denier, Anthony Watts of WUWT.
Let me put the “fall in global temperatures” in some context. Here’s the global average temperature, month-by-month, according to NASA data:
Here’s what Chrisopher Booker is talking about (blue circled dots):
Here’s a close-up of what Booker tells you about:
You have to be desperate to try making that the story.
Actual climate scientists already know that temperature shows fluctuations, up and down and all around, but that over the long haul those fluctuations don’t go anywhere. What’s important is the trend, the change that persists and is a harbinger of things to come. That’s why they tell you about it, sometimes like this (red line):
I put it to you thus: who should we be listening to, the actual climate scientists, or Christopher Booker?
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.