How well I remember it. In April 2006, when Bob Carter, in a UK Telegraph op-ed, observed that there had been no warming of the earth since 1998, global warming advocates screamed that Carter didn't know what he was talking about; that he was only "a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research," not a real climatologist; and that anyway, the science was settled, so he (and we) should shut up already.
3-1/2 years later, Paul Hudson, the climate correspondent (at least for now) at no less than the previously climate koolaid-poisoned BBC, without naming him, is acknowledging the correctness (HT Instapundit) of Carter's observations. The Beeb reporter also concludes .... brace for it .... that "it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." Imagine that.
As I've been writing for years, "Consensus, conschmensus."
Here are selected paragraphs from Hudson's report:
What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. (The contention about 1998 may be incorrect; it IS incorrect in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. -- see Update below)
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases.
.... But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
It doesn't really seem to be much of a "revolution" to admit that Mr. Sun influences global temps, but there it is.
This spreadsheet shows that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions grew from 23.16 billion metric tons in 1998 to 29.20 billion in 2006 -- a 26% increase. If manmade gases were causing warming, one would expect that we should have almost literally gone to Hades in a handbasket during that period, and to have burnt to a more serious crisp since then. Obviously, that has hasn't happened. It hasn't because the preponderance of the evidence, or at least of the evidence that hasn't been conveniently lost, seems to support the notion that the idea of man-made global warming may be one of the biggest hoaxes associated with power-grabbing efforts by statists in human history.
Given the evidence, it's truly frustrating to see this country's president continue to act as if man-made global warming is an established, irrefutable fact, and, along with his party, continue to insist that draconian cuts in this country's emissions must be made -- even as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) chug merrily along.
When the globalarmists are starting to lose the BBC, you know that their foundations are beginning to crumble. Quick -- better pass another bill that no one will have time to read or properly evaluate, and that the U.S. establishment media, still firmly in globaloney's grip, will cheer.
UPDATE: Thanks to BizzyBlog commenter zf for reminding me that 1934 is the hottest year on record, not 1998, at least in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S.. I have revised my opening sentence accordingly. BBC's opening-paragraph contention regarding temperatures in the entire world in 1998 may be incorrect.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course, reasonable
October 10, 2009 - 23:07 ET by BKeyserOf course, reasonable people know that the "science" followed by global warming alarmists is nothing more than a leap of faith, and should be mocked for it's inability to be substantiated. Sadly, most kool-aid drinkers are simply sold on the message and purposefully avoid looking at the evidence.
But I think what has become painfully obvious is the volume of the call for wealth distribution to combat the "effects" of "climate change." This was always the message, in the back rooms, but didn't have to be communicated because of the successful swindle being played out on a PC culture. Now that the truth has been leaked -that the world's temperatures are actually cooling- they can't rely solely on the bogus science and have had to be more upfront with their actual goal. They know they're running out of time- and are following the progressive playbook for engineered change: Ram it down their throats with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and guilt them into doing what we want.
The last successful operation to be carried out this way was the General Election of 2008. But as goes the US democrat agenda, this too, will fail.
BK,
October 10, 2009 - 23:37 ET by UpNorththat great scientist, Tom Friedman, was in Grand Rapids on Wednesday or Thursday, and announced to all in attendance that the issue was settled, we just have to give up our cars, or pay $5.00/gal and up for gas, live in the dark and eat cold food. Science has determined that CO2 is responsible for warming, cooling, change, no change. And if we do nothing, or something, it won't matter, but we have to do it.
And you're right, his underlying theme was that we(the US) have to give up some of our life style so that Mother Earth will survive. The money quote was "real men tax gas".
The second best quote was, and I'm quoting, not kidding, " We humans have introduced so much carbon dioxide into Mother Nature's
operating system that we no longer know the difference between an act
of God and an act of man. Did we make Katrina or did she make Katrina?"
Even better, the link leads to more of his moronic statements:
http://www.mlive.com...
No. I'm sorry. But you can't
October 11, 2009 - 08:06 ET by notonmywatchNo. I'm sorry. But you can't just be so adamant about something, then whoop-de-doo change your mind, oh well, never mind.
No rational person would ever trust anything the BBC spouts again, after this.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Actually
October 11, 2009 - 07:42 ET by 10ksnookerIt's a leap of lies.
What will Agent Algore
October 11, 2009 - 00:51 ET by AgentAmericanWhat will Agent Algore do?
"The votes haven't been counted!!!"
Now that his delusional fantasy is beginning to crumble, he hugs his Florida 2000 teddy bear!
Awake the sleeping giant...and that giant is WE THE PEOPLE!
It simply does not matter
October 11, 2009 - 05:03 ET by richb313It simply does not matter any more. This President and Congress is determined to have thier way and they have support from certain figures from the right as well. McCain(OK not so right) is one example and there others who actually believe this clap trap about Man Made Global Warming.
McCain has been proven to be the really dullest knife in the drawer. The very fact that these people can be so easily duped into believing this fantasy is not comforting at all. Legislation will pass and be signed into law unless we can mount a very large and very loud opposition. The attractiveness to politicians of this Cap and Trade Legislation is that it is a way to dump massive amounts of hidden taxes and fees on the population. This type of stealth taxation has always been attractive to Washington and now they have cover from some big corperations that have positioned themselves to make huge profits just from the Trade part of Cap and Trade.
The damage to the economy will be huge and a recovery from this recession might take more than a decade. It will do more real damage to this country than has been done by our enemies. If passed this legislation will be very hard to get rid of once in place. Anyone who supports this type of legislation should never be allowed to have the public trust again.
It does matter. "Tax and
October 11, 2009 - 06:22 ET by EdhenryIt does matter. "Tax and job loss" bill is worse than the public option.
Fortunately the anti-american "Tax and job loss" bill is oppossed by vast majority of the US.
Keep exposing the fraud, with the hard science that completely refutes this hoax, and the $$ made by the hypocritical few. Keep the pressure on because there is no disinfectant like sunlight shown on this scheme to destroy the US.
The vast majority of Americans are ignored
October 11, 2009 - 07:46 ET by richb313The vast majority of Americans are ignored by this congress. The public option is still on the table and not dead. Some sort of healthcare bill will be passed and I predict the Public Option WILL be included. The point I am trying to make is that there is too much that is attractive to both the Congress and some Big Corperations (G.E. is just one) that have too much to gain by passing this. These bad ideas never go away.
The Democrats are still stinging over the failed attempt to get Universal Health Coverage during the Clinton years. From thier perspective they not only lost the debate but lost the House as well. They know this is a contriversial issue but think that the best move is too pass it anyway because they might never get this opportunity again. Also once this Bill is passed they will use all the Hype around it to help boost thier image. From thier persective it was because they FAILED to get the Clinton Era Health Care that they lost the House because once the bill failed to pass they could no longer control the narrative.
Any time they get to pass anything it will be treated as a victory and they will use this to marginalise any opposition. The same logic applies to Cap and Trade. Remember the old adage, "Nothing succeeds like success."
Rich, you are right on
October 11, 2009 - 08:57 ET by celatorRich, you are right on point. It's the astounding arrogance of the Congress and the White House--bent on cap and tax and the public option--which is causing citizens to stand up and be counted.
Every single voting citizen in the US could sign a petition asking them to not do either one of these and they would still continue pursuing their passage. They would laugh in our faces.
There is something completely amiss in Washington, and it is very dangerous.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
The Powerful Earth
October 11, 2009 - 05:23 ET by Red JeepWho is more powerful Man or the Earth?
The History Channel has an extremely interesting series called “Life After People.” The premise of the series is to explore what would happen to all man has built if people suddenly vanished from the planet (for whatever reasons, nuclear war, plague, etc.) The episodes look at the stages of what man has built 50 Years after People, 100 years, 200 years, etc.
Bottom Line, 500 Years After People about the only thing left recognizable that man has built would be what remains of Mount Rushmore. NYC would be almost all returned to forest land.
The series drives home the point that as powerful as man thinks he is the earth will survive us just fine.
Anyway I wish the Global Warmists would send some warming to upstate NY. We had one 90 degree day this year and maybe a couple 80+ degree days so far this year, and NO summer.
It is obvious to me that Obama is the reason for end of AGW!
October 11, 2009 - 05:56 ET by acaiguanaGee, we elected Obama and Global Warming is now being noticed as 'not happening'.
There you have it.
On the other hand...
The discovery that no detectable delta of Earth's temperature over the past eleven years might be a product of real science. Real science has a good history of explaining (in theory) what has happened to the Earth in the past; it does not have any history of success in explaining what will happen to the Earth tomorrow or next year or in a thousand years.
Earthquake Science still cannot predict those pesky fault movements. After an earthquake, we try to predict whether it will produce a Tidal Wave. Often we are wrong about that, not to mention magnitude or effect.
What all of this proves actually, with no real room for defense, is that predictive computer models are not only primitive in nature, but also inaccurate to the extreme.
A so-called 'climate model' would have to be able to incorporate chaos predictibility in its paradigm. Can't be done as we don't really understand how that works.
We also don't understand the so-called 'butterfly effect' which is maybe a myth and maybe the only real reason binary decisions are finally made.
No decision at all is the only alternative to a binary decision. One could argue that every decision made could simply be done with a coin toss and all the discussion and analysis in the world is a wasted effort.
This discounts all the built up industry centered about the so-called 'informed decision' model.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
No decision at all is the
October 11, 2009 - 07:03 ET by motherbeltNo decision at all is the only alternative to a binary decision.
Ah, but "no decision at all" is also a decision!
motherbelt - you are both right and wrong.
October 11, 2009 - 07:26 ET by acaiguana1. If you consider that one has a choice of three things, make a decision/do not make a decision. And the other two are the two choices within a decision - yes or no, you might be right. But the reality is the decision initially is 'Make a decision/don't make a decision.' Then you are still (comes the second decision) faced with a binary decision tree. To get to the binary decision (or not), you have to make a binary decision - get it?
2. If you think that you don't have to make a binary decision as cited in #1 above; then you are faced with a three way decision - which isn't true, by the way, but I'll concede the popular idea that #1 above doesn't apply.
As a person who builds AI into computers, I can assure you that I am right - but you are popularily right.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
The debate IS over!
October 11, 2009 - 07:36 ET by Joe C.The debate about global warming is over, and the consensus is that it is, was, and always will be a hoax. Those that still cling to the claim that it exists are either ignorant, delusional, hucksters, or economic terrorists. Unfortunately the terrorists run the U.S. government, the U.N., and most of the capitols of Europe. Their real intention is control of the global economy.
The hoax was nothing more than ...
October 11, 2009 - 07:41 ET by 10ksnookerHide the temperature data and lie.
All you need to know in one short video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY
In a sane world that would be the end of the hoax.
But this winter is going to be really hard on the hoaxers. The sun has decided to take a holiday. And you can't fix the sun.
It's the sun?
October 11, 2009 - 08:29 ET by JWFYes, it is the sun. Maybe they could fire up those global warming prediction computers and figure out if we are headed for a new minimum.
Also in other news -
I have invented a new system that can take the extra carbon dioxide out of the air and strip out the carbon and return the oxygen atoms to the atmosphere. I call it the Axiomatic-Transmaterially Reducing Environmental Emissions process*. Just remember it by the acronym when you explain it to your friends ----- A. - T.R.E.E.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
* patent pending
JWF one of these days
October 11, 2009 - 10:35 ET by cajun2I hope, one of these days, to have the joy of buying you a large cup of coffee.
Didn't they tell us there
October 11, 2009 - 14:45 ET by danboDidn't they tell us there would be no more minimums due to AGW. And no more La Nina. That we were to go into full time el nino.
HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)
JWF, Here is the latest on the spotless sun
October 12, 2009 - 07:34 ET by upcountrywaterGraph
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
Yes, and in the mean time
October 11, 2009 - 08:45 ET by msh1973Yes, and in the mean time Lindsey Graham has now backed the Cap and Tax Bill, McCain won't be far behind. We are screwed with the RINOs still in the Senate. When the likes of Graham start standing with Kerry, oh my gosh.....
Re Graham
October 11, 2009 - 10:12 ET by slickwillie2001Graham needs to be primary'd. We might make a case for tolerating RINOs in hopelessly democratic states, but not South Carolina. Someone please run against this man.
5 year wait
October 11, 2009 - 12:24 ET by Red JeepGuess what? The people of South Carolina just re-elected Miss Lindsay in 2008. Sigh.
Another factor in climate change
October 11, 2009 - 12:08 ET by FeynmanFanThis article describes observations and theories about the influences of the earth's orbit around the sun and precession of the Earth's axis of rotation on climate.
It's a fairly long article (but an easy read) and I won't try to summarize it here, but if you're interested in other factors in climate change, it's an interesting alternative.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
Re cycles
October 11, 2009 - 12:45 ET by slickwillie2001That is one damn fine article. Good graphics too. There are so many complex cycles that I have to wonder how one might ever theorize on the effects of interaction in very long beats and harmonics. Probably other cycles we haven't found yet, maybe with cycles of movement in the molten core and magnetic field. Demonstrates how little we know.
An easy read...
October 11, 2009 - 15:35 ET by JPR1A fine article indeed FeynmanFan. I’ve got just enough science behind me to keep up and couldn’t presume for a minute to argue the conclusions. There is a little gem of a sentence in there (1st para - Orbital shape) which I think all “deniers” should commit to memory and be ready to deliver whenever a greenie wants to “discuss” AGW.
The shape of the Earth's orbit varies from being nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) to being mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) and has a mean eccentricity of 0.028 (or 0.017 which is current value, if we take geometric mean, because phenomena in a gravitational field of Lobachevskian pseudosphere as used by Einstein behave logarithmically).
As I see it, if you can rattle that off without hesitation and put a little accent on Lobachevskian, any lib is gonna have his hands over his ears stammering for his momma.
Tom. I think 1934 was the
October 11, 2009 - 14:40 ET by danboTom. I think 1934 was the warmest year for the US. Might want to check that.
Globally it depends on who you look at. I think GISS is still saying 2005, (thought Hanson's friends seem to ignore that and go with 1998. I think 1998 is considered warmest with CRU, RSS and UAH. But UAH and RSS are satellite formats, only going back to abouut 1978 or so. And CRU is adjusted and it looks like they loss the raw data.
Trivia
Warmest reading recording anywhere: 135deg, Al ‘Aziziyah, Libya, 9/13/1922.
North America; 134deg at Furnace Creek, Death Valley, July of 1913.
Asia; Tirat Zvi, Israel, 129deg , 6/21/1942.
Europe; Seville, Spain, 122deg, 8/4/1881.
S America; Rivadavia, Argentina , 120deg, 12/11/1905.
Australia; Cloncurry, Queensland, 128deg, 1/16/1889.
Antarctica; Vanda Station, 59 deg. 1/5/1974.
HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. (Charles Gibson of the dead media.)
See my update at the end
October 11, 2009 - 15:38 ET by Tom BlumerI think that covers it. If I'm wrong, let me know.
"Settled science?" There
October 11, 2009 - 18:15 ET by samhermanmd"Settled science?" There is NO SUCH THING. The very nature of science is that of discovery and proof. There is always a frontier of knowledge, and you can never know everything.
By the standards of the idiot global warming alarmists, my physician colleagues would still be bleeding patients to rid them of the ill humors causing disease. Or alternatively, we would be using mercury as a wonder medication.
It seems interesting to me that this alarmist propaganda is being pushed by stupid reporters ignorant of the scientific method.
Settled Science
October 12, 2009 - 08:30 ET by bobdogA century or two ago, the science was "settled" that plaugue and later cholera were unquestionably caused by "miasma" or "night air".
60 or 70 years ago, the science was "settled" in Germany that all of the world's problems were caused by interbreeding with non-Aryan races and that Eugenics (and worse) was the correct response to cleaning up the world's gene pool.
A decade or two ago, the science was "settled" that we were descending into the next Great Ice Age, and that we were all going to starve to death because of crop failures and fuel shortages.
A few years ago, Al Gore was the "recognized expert" in politicomorphic global warming.
This 'movement' (AGW)
October 11, 2009 - 19:14 ET by ahusserHas not much to do about science, except as a smokescreen, (you know the old 9 out of 10 doctors agree advert). This is a political movement plain and simple. The AGW'ers are socialist/leftists and the agenda ain't whether the science is right or proves their point. It is the implementation of the socialist 'utopia' on earth. Nothing more powerful than pseudo-science with true believers as accolytes and proseletisers of a new religion (mother earth worship?).
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'