Christopher Booker

Does Christopher Booker exist? Or is he simply a device invented to waste as much of other people's time as possible? Might he in fact be a computer programme randomly generating nonsense in order to keep scientists, environmentalists and public health campaigners so busy refuting it that they can't get on with what they ought to be doing? I ask because it seems almost impossible that one man could make so many superhuman cock-ups. Christopher Booker (1937-2019) was a British journalist and author. He was a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph in the UK between 1990 and 2019. He also wrote regular columns for The Spectator and was a long-standing contributor to Private Eye, where he penned the poems of E.J. Thribb (aged 17 1/2) and the columns of leftie ranter Dave Spart. He published The Seven Basic Plots (2004), a controversial book on storytelling from a Jungian perspective, which took him 35 years to write.

On the other hand, he was also an anti-science crank with a range and depth quite astonishing for a journalist of such eminence. Possibly, his long association with Private Eye, which habitually pokes fun at The Great And Good clouded his judgement. In seeing scientists as "establishment" figures, with their obscure language and ivory towers, he mistrusted them as a reflex reaction. While it is possible to hold plausible opinions on politics without much expert knowledge, the same is not true of science. Many deniers and cranks do not appear to appreciate this difference &mdash; Booker was certainly among them.

Climate change denial
Climate change was one of Booker's signature campaigns. He has written a book on the global warming "hoax" that a review in the Observer described as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual".

The book is in fact well argued, well written and thoroughly referenced. It is also complete bollocks from start to finish. His favoured tactic is to misunderstand (being charitable) or misrepresent the sources he quotes. As with creationists, it's only if you check what the references say that the deceit becomes plain.

Creationism
Booker was a creationist of the intelligent design variety. He was not particularly interesting or original in his claims; he merely regurgitated a selection of favourite creationist tropes such as Darwin's "eye problem", the fossil record, etc. As usual, he reconciled this with his worldview by blaming the scientific establishment that insists on the Darwinian orthodoxy and resists any challenges to its authority.

His hook for a story in The Spectator was a conference that he attended on intelligent design. This was held at a secret location, with participants that were (seemingly) there by invitation only. The meeting was bankrolled by an unnamed billionaire. Booker seemed unaware that the heroes of his article represented the kind of conspiracy that he habitually condemns. The scientific bodies that make up "the establishment" can at least be named and are not secretive (at least, not in the way he implies).

Asbestos
Denying the health risks posed by asbestos is a fringe activity, even for hardcore cranks. Booker rose to the occasion. Indeed, one of his most famous claims is that asbestos "is chemically identical to talcum powder". It isn't, of course, but this information has not led him to a retraction or even an acknowledgement of his nonsense. (Talc and some forms of asbestos are both magnesium silicates, but since there have been persistent worries about asbestos contamination in talc, it should be obvious they are not the same. )

Most people would trust a professor of chemistry to know such things as chemical structure. As a member of the scientific establishment, professors are not to be trusted. Instead, Booker turns to John Bridle, who claims an honorary doctorate from the Russian National Academy of Science and a position at the University of Glamorgan, for his information. In reality, Bridle has no connection to either academic institution: he simply says he has, and he is a known fraudster.

The dubious qualifications of his source have been pointed out to Booker. Facts appear to have little impact. Presumably, he either thought that a proven liar is a reliable source or he regarded this as an attempt by the scientific establishment to discredit him and his source.

Second-hand smoke
Pretty much what you would expect. No evidence that it causes cancer, a cover up to hide the evidence, blah, blah.

Oh, and he was a DDT nut as well.

Euroscepticism
Booker was, unsurprisingly, a eurosceptic. He believed that the UK's European integration was a slow-motion coup d'etat with an agenda of subordination to invasive centralised regulation that could be economically harmful to the country. He and his partner-in-crime Richard North published a couple of books shitting on the EU, including The Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must Get Out of Europe (1996) and The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (2005).

Ironically, he was opposed to Brexit when it finally happened.

Crusading journalism
Booker was a persistent and tenacious campaigner for victims of stupidity caused by government and other forms of officialdom and bureaucracy. This is a very worthy aim and he ought to be applauded for it. However, it appears he was just as incompetent and oblivious to reality as with his anti-science crusades. In his summing up on a case where a child was taken into care, Judge Bellamy singled out Booker for criticism:

He also got into bother while a jazz reviewer for the Sunday Telegraph by producing an enthusiastic review of a concert that had actually been cancelled.

Criticism
George Monbiot has been a persistent critic of Booker's nonsense. In response, Booker offered a robust defence of his claims, wheeling out a set of unreliable and discredited sources in his defence.

Retraction
An article written by Booker with Richard North about the IPCC chief Rajendra K. Pachauri was retracted by The Sunday Telegraph on the grounds that it was a pack of lies. This seems to be part of a general attack on Pachauri by climate change deniers. The retraction was highly unusual given virtually everything else Booker has written for the Sunday Telegraph is also a pack of lies yet never gets retracted.