The real climate change catastrophe

[DimPrawn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425...tastrophe.html

In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.

Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.

How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?

[BrilloPad]

We have to believe in climate change. Then Gordon can implement a green tax.

This will help to pay off the national debt.

[TroubleAtMill]

Ah, Christopher Booker. The man who say that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and therefore poses no risk.

[sasguru]

Ah, Christopher Booker. The man who say that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and therefore poses no risk.

Indeed.
There's something about the fact that Chirstopher Booker is a hack with a degree in history and no expertise whatsoever in science that Dim by nature doesn't get

[DimPrawn]

Indeed.
There's something about the fact that Chirstopher Booker is a hack with a degree in history and no expertise whatsoever in science that Dim by nature doesn't get

He didn't write the book. Try opening your mind a bit.

[Doggy Styles]

Ah, Christopher Booker. The man who say that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and therefore poses no risk.

That is not quite true. He was saying that "there are two quite different chemicals lumped together under the name "asbestos", so that 85 per cent or more of this expenditure (clearing up asbestos) will be directed at a product that poses no risk to human health and is chemically identical to talcum powder."

[sasguru]

Try opening your mind a bit.

I did. I came to the conclusion that Christopher Booker is one of those hacks who is deliberately controversial and spouts constant crap as that's how he makes a living.

HTH.

[DimPrawn]

I did. I came to the conclusion that Christopher Booker is one of those hacks who is deliberately controversial and spouts constant crap as that's how he makes a living.

HTH.

He sounds a bit like you then.

[sasguru]

That is not quite true. He was saying that "there are two quite different chemicals lumped together under the name "asbestos", so that 85 per cent or more of this expenditure (clearing up asbestos) will be directed at a product that poses no risk to human health and is chemically identical to talcum powder."

He was still talking complete BS:

"Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" [8] 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. It is worth noting that even if the composition were identical, which it clearly isn't, the actually structure/connectivity is what is significant, a situation well known in chemistry as isomerism at a molecular level and polymorphism (materials science) in the case of non-molecular materials or crystals. What makes chrysotile dangerous is not its composition - silicates are common - but its fibrous structure.

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 [9] 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".[10].

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."[11].

In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal[12] after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"[13].

In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[14] 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". [15].

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[16]. In the article[17], 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[18], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

"


And we're supposed to take this cretin seriously?

[Brussels Slumdog]

Where will the tax come from when the petrol runs out

We have to believe in climate change. Then Gordon can implement a green tax.

This will help to pay off the national debt.

Every time you fill up your tank with petrol you pay about 64% to the Government. You gladly pay these taxes because you believe that it is your duty to save the environment.
Does anyone know how many billions the government collects
in fuel taxes. Where will they get the same amount of money when the fuel
runs out one day? Tax on wind turbines?