I always held out hope for them.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...disproved.html

I'm not holding my breath for the BBC to re-think their stance though.

He wrote an article saying asbestos is fine as well, it must be true!

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 [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 (200. (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"'.
In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming''[13] and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'.[14] The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." That claim is false as an explanation was provided on 13 December and Booker's article was published on 21 December.[15].


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

__________________
My Grow: http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/77350-stealth-wardrobe-grow.html

Point taken.........Didn't know that about Booker....

Still, I find it odd that the defacto head of the environmental movement is a trained lawyer, and self described internet pioneer.

The problem I have with global warmist is that they attempt to explain everything as evidence of man fucking the earth up the ass.

Likewise - the purpose of scientific theory is to produce non-obvious predictions which are then compared to with experience. So far, this hasn't worked. The Hockey Stick has failed......

Nor is much of an attempt made to explain previous ice-ages. Some say volcanoes and one explanation of the little ice age finds that trees pulled so much carbon out of the air that it help trigger a period of global cooling. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1218094551.htm

Nor is much said about the sun...

Their confidence is what makes me skeptical. Yet, their predictions never pan out.

Their only solution is to curb consumption, and far off technology. We have a solution already - nuclear power. It is very clean, very safe and could power us until we find a truly renewable resource, yet the alarmists never proffer it as a solution. I don't see a car that you plug in to an outlet powered by coal as any change. Yet, much is made about the electric car.