The Real Global Warming Disaster

The Real Global Warming Disaster

Is the Obsession With 'climate Change' Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?

Book - 2009
Average Rating:
Rate this:
Christopher Booker interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how just when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged like never before. --from publisher description
Publisher: London ; New York : Continuum, 2009
ISBN: 9781441110527
Call Number: 363.7387 B6443r
Characteristics: ix, 368 p. : ill. ; 23 cm


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Nov 08, 2017

Kim_H is a lunatic. He/she didn’t even look into Christopher Booker’s background. And if Kim_H did look into the author’s background and still gives him credit then there is something wrong. The author is a nutjob that makes money off vacuous scapegraces like Kim_H. Please research the author before you believe his BS. Please recognize your biases and learn proper science before spewing BS too. Thank you.

Jun 02, 2015

Booker is a fossil fuel shill with zero science credentials. His book is utter nonsense.

Meanwhile, how we know it's us:

Next time you're asked, "How much global warming is due to humans?", you can honestly say, "about 220%". That's right - 220%!

How so? Because on a 100 year time scale, the only major warmers are greenhouse gases, the main driving gas being CO2 (H2O is also major, but, being entirely passive, is not a driver).

Meanwhile, each year Earth manages to absorb 55% of the man-made CO2. So, the 45% that remains airborne is what's been raising atmospheric CO2 (by 2.1 parts per million by volume each year, or 43% since 1850). So, the man-made contribution to the main global warming driver is 220% or more than twice as much as what stays in our air.

What this means is humans are entirely responsible for ALL the global warming in the modern era, and then some.

Remember this when some skeptic questions man's contribution to global warming.

What led scientists to this conclusion? Several separate lines of evidence that coalesce to yield the above conclusion. What evidence? In summary, the following:

Beyond rising surface temperatures, we know the Earth must be warming because the INCOMING energy has been exceeding the OUTGOING energy for many decades;

Yet, INCOMING energy has fallen slightly, and the stratosphere has been cooling, which says the warming can't be due to excess solar energy, like some global warming deniers keep claiming;

Also, CO2 and other greenhouse gases not only block OUTGOING energy, but they do so with a measured spectrum that closely matches the expected drop in the spectral lines, were the decrease due to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's like a fingerprint. So, from the above, we know that the buildup in green house gases is what's causing the warming.

We also know that man-made CO2 exceeds volcanic CO2 by more than 10,000%; the CO2 buildup can't be due to volcanoes. There are no other natural CO2 sources that haven't been in close balance with CO2 sinks for several millenia. So, the CO2 buildup is UNNATURAL, meaning it's man-made.

Plus, we also know that plants absorb carbon12 preferentially. Burning fossils (dead plants buried for eons) releases C12. And the measured drop in the C13/C12 ratio also says that the excess CO2 has been induced mostly by humans burning fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal).

And while solar energy has fallen, deforestation has also added about 10 to 15% excessCO2, and cement production another 5% or so.

All of which is yet another way of showing that, since about 1850, all the global warming has been entirely man-made.


Mar 06, 2015

The Global Warming zealots have admitted that their belief is lacking scientific proof so they treat their beliefs as a religion!

Mar 05, 2015

Articles criticising the author include . . . . . . . and . . . . . . . and . . . “Monbiot's royal flush : Top 10 climate change deniers” from . . . . . and . . . “Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory” from . . . . . . . and . . . . “How much longer can Christopher Booker go on misleading readers?” from


Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.


Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number


Subject Headings


Find it at SFPL

To Top