Natsman wrote:
On 8 Oct, 04:45, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:43 pm, John. Athome wrote:

Global warming dogma and faulty computer models led the Met Office to
forecast a 'barbecue summer' for 2009, says Christopher Booker.
(Big Long Read - Daily Telegraph 3rd October)

No surprise that this dross was in the Telegraph though the poorly
researched piece and horrid writing style is more typical of a tabloid.

There is no evidence for either of those claims. Why should we
take them at all seriously, given that Christoper Booker knows very
little about meteorology and certainly has no knowledge whatever of
the models and methods used in producing seasonal forecasts, or any
other forecasts I would imagine.
The term "barbecue summer" should have been excised as a
misleadingly simplisitic description of a month or two that would be
warmer than normal.

ISTR The Met Office prediction was along the lines of a probability of
70% in favour of a warmer than average summer. Unfortunately that didn't
make a good soundbite so someone spiced it up a bit to BBQ Summer.

Ignore all journalists' pieces about Global Warming. Their
ignorance of the subject is comprehensive, with the exception of one
or two we know.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

However, he does expound the fact that there is a lot of scientific
(and general) dissent out there, and this dissent isn't readily
available to the general public, because the television media just
makes a point of broadcasting whatever "this expert" or "that report"

That simply isn't true. There are a handful of loud mouthed denialists
making a lot of noise but they are a very tiny minority of politically
motivated extreme right wingers. If you look at the attendee lists for
any of the denialist fests the same handful of names crop up again and
again. Very few have any scientific credibility. They are well organised
and set out to deliberately mislead the public.

There is a *scientific* consensus on AGW. There are a few genuine
scientists with real criticisms of the computer models and have
suggested other mechanisms that need to be investigated but the basic
science is still sound. GHG forcing became significant around 1970 and
after that none of the sceptics can balance the Earths energy budget
without including GHG forcing. The suns output is satellite monitored so
you cannot handwave it away as the sun getting brighter.

The real difficulty with AGW is in deciding what to do about it in the
longer term. I suspect we will do nothing and the next generation will
pay dearly for out prevarication.

has said, or "this" or "that" politician's view (and they know sod all
about meteorology either) without any discussion or putting forward
opposing views. I notice recently, that there again appears to be
more mentioning of "global warming" rather than "climate change" - is
this pure chance, or deliberate?

Whatever you may think of Christopher Booker, his articles certainly
generate lively debate.

He is scientifically illiterate which is sadly typical of most
journalists and politicians. Thatcher was curiously a rare exception. If
his Wikipedia entry is correct then he is a complete raving loony!

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

It is rather sad that the Telegraph gives a regular column to someone
with such a weak grasp on reality.

Regards,
Martin Brown