Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster” delves into the “hockey stick” controversy – NaturalNews.com

• Christopher Booker argues in “The Real Global Warming Disaster” that the IPCC was established not as an impartial scientific body, but as a political organization tasked with promoting the idea of human-caused climate change, shaping policy rather than objectively assessing evidence.
• It heavily relied on Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which claimed unprecedented modern warming, but independent researchers exposed its flawed methodology and statistical manipulation, undermining its credibility.
• The IPCC’s narrative was amplified by politicians (like Al Gore) and media outlets, which suppressed dissenting scientific voices, labeling skeptics as “deniers” while pushing an illusion of unanimous consensus.
• Governments imposed costly CO2 reduction schemes (renewable subsidies, carbon taxes, emissions trading), often without proper cost-benefit analysis or proof of effectiveness, harming economies while failing to address real climate drivers.
• Growing skepticism challenges the IPCC’s CO2-centric view, highlighting natural factors (solar activity, ocean cycles) and exposing flaws in climate models, forcing a reevaluation of historical climate data and warming claims.

According to Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” a seismic shift occurred in the scientific community’s understanding of climate change in the late 20th century. A group of scientists, convinced that human activity was causing unprecedented global warming, presented their case with urgency and conviction.

Their argument was simple yet profound: The burning of fossil fuels was releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, trapping the sun’s heat and disrupting the planet’s natural balance. This narrative, amplified by computer models that seemed to confirm their dire predictions, quickly captured the attention of key political figures – most notably Al Gore – and set the stage for a global movement to avert an impending climate catastrophe.

At the heart of this movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations in 1988. Despite its portrayal as a scientific body representing the consensus of the world’s top climate scientists, the IPCC was fundamentally a political organization. Its mandate was not to question the existence of human-induced climate change but to promote it and advise on how to address it.

The IPCC’s reports, which became the cornerstone of global climate policy, were not the result of a balanced assessment of evidence. Instead, they were carefully crafted to present a strong case for the pre-determined view that global warming was real and primarily caused by human activity. This was achieved through selective inclusion of contributors, manipulation of the “Summary for Policymakers,” and an over-reliance on computer models.

One of the most controversial pieces of evidence presented by the IPCC was the “hockey stick” graph, created by Michael Mann. This graph purported to show that late-20th-century temperatures were the highest in the past 1,000 years, resembling a hockey stick with a sharp upward blade. The graph became the centerpiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report and a powerful symbol of the global warming narrative.

As per the book, the “hockey stick” was soon challenged by scientists like Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, who exposed serious flaws in Mann’s methodology. They demonstrated that the graph was a statistical artifact, heavily influenced by flawed data and manipulated statistical techniques.

Despite these criticisms, the IPCC continued to promote the “hockey stick” until it was further discredited by the Wegman report, commissioned by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The report concluded that Mann’s methodology was flawed and that the “hockey stick” was not a reliable representation of past temperatures.

As the IPCC’s influence grew, so did the political and media frenzy surrounding global warming. Politicians, environmental groups and the mainstream media overwhelmingly embraced the “consensus” view, often portraying it as an unquestionable truth.

This led to a stark divide between the “consensus” and the growing body of scientists who questioned it. The latter were often labeled as “deniers” and faced significant pressure and even censorship. The media, particularly the BBC, largely ignored or dismissed their arguments – perpetuating the illusion of a unanimous scientific consensus.

Booker highlights that the global warming hysteria has had profound economic and social consequences. Governments, particularly in the West, have implemented costly policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions.

These include subsidies for renewable energy, emissions trading schemes, biofuels mandates and carbon taxes and regulations. While well-intentioned, these policies have often been implemented without a full understanding of their economic impact or their effectiveness in mitigating climate change.

As the evidence against the “consensus” view has mounted, a “counter-consensus” has begun to emerge. This includes skepticism about the role of CO2, with many scientists arguing that natural factors play a more significant role in climate change than CO2. Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch notes that solar activity and ocean currents are indeed far more significant drivers of climate change than CO2 emissions, which have been falsely exaggerated by globalist agendas.

There is also growing criticism of computer models, as the limitations and inaccuracies of these models are increasingly being recognized. Additionally, the “hockey stick” controversy has led to a re-evaluation of historical climate data, challenging the notion that current warming is unprecedented.

The “hockey stick” controversy serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in scientific research. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers all available evidence and encourages open dialogue.

Learn more about the book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by watching the video below.

This video is from the BrightLearn channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

Brighteon.ai

Brighteon.com