Global Warming Dogma Challenged

January 29, 2012 | Filed under Breaking News,Global Warming | Posted by

Al Gore will not be pleased by a particular report published by the Daily Mail.  Here are excerpts from the report:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Lest we forget, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit is the organization at the center of Climategate. The same science group that tried to “hide the decline” has finally admitted to the existence of the decline.

What does this mean for those climate models that the IPCC relies on?

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

It won’t be just the scientific community that will question the theories.  Non-scientists will question them, too. What will be the result?

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Yes, the implications could be serious. They might even drive someone over the edge.

« « “What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?”
“When Higher Marginal Tax Rates Helped The Economy” » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 29, 2012.
Filed under Breaking News, Global Warming.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • retired.military

    Poor poor Stephen.  Another slap to his face and that of his idols, Obama and Al Gore.

    • Mr Kimber

      He is one angry guy…angery and stupid is no way to go thru life.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Ummmm, about that consensus:
    ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
    These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
    ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’
    said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research
    at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to
    convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well
    be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the
    need for their help.’

  • LiberalNightmare

    Quick! Where did we put all of those old global cooling pamphlets!?

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      They are next to the copies of the 70s-era issue of Newsweek that proclaims global cooling is upon us.

  • EricSteel

    Expect the spin from the Left to be, “well we’ve been warning about global cooling since the 70s”

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

      Mr. Steel,

      It’s called “climate change” donchaknow.  I know you think of it as “weather,” but it is really “climate change,” when its suits the followers of Rev. Gore’s church.

  • jim_m

    Expect these guys to be excommunicated from the church of global warming.

    Also expect that this will not be covered at all in the US.  AP is apparently refusing to pick up the story.

    Once the Thames freezes over you won’t hear about AGW anymore and you definitely won’t hear any mea culpas from the left.

  • jim_m

    I appreciated this comment in today’s Telegraph:

    So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain’s most discredited
    university department – the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA – made a
    fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded
    disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections,
    thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering
    campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an
    entirely unnecessary scheme to “decarbonise” the UK economy. His reward
    for this has been to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the
    world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat
    called “climate change.”

    • herddog505

      SSSHHHH!!!!  Stop saying that!  As we all know, the ONLY people getting ANY money from global warming are the DENIERS, who are paid big bucks to come up with propaganda to try to offset the TRUTH told by their academic superiors, laboring in poverty solely to try to save the earth from SUV’s, incandescent lamps, and cow flatulence!

      /sarc

  • GarandFan

    ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by
    2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if
    they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’Implications for the $cientists?  Yes.  BUT, just think what the implications for certain POLITICIANS will be.As for the MSM, it will just be another nail in their credibility coffin.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Keep this in mind when discussing the “scientific consensus” on CAGW:
    “…we redistribute de facto the
    world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the
    illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This
    has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010 interview [H/t Dr. Charles Battig]

    Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  • 914

    But bUT But!1 the planet has a feverish fever!!  

  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

    Strange… Stephen hasn’t popped up yet to drop a fat, steaming load here.

    • jim_m

      It’s a school night.  Mommy must have made him go to bed early.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    My late father dismissed the global warming alarmists back in the days of Kyoto with the prescient “Why would I believe someone’s prediction of what the temperature will be 50 years from now when they can’t even tell me for sure if it is going to rain tomorrow?”

    Early results from deep ice-core drilling beneath the Antarctic surface indicate that CO2 concentrations rise as a result of rising temperatures, not the other way around.  Oops!

    • jim_m

      It just goes to show the extent that so-called scientists will sell out their integrity for a few dollars.  Just like in the Chevron case in South America, scientists of the academic left are willing to lie in order to further their ideology.  Plus there is ample evidence that there are significant sections of the left that do not believe that science is about investigating truth to begin with.
      http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/science_editor_quits_after_hoax/
      http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_sokal_hoax/

      The number of retractions in scientific journals has surged 15-fold over
      the past decade, rising to 339 last year from 22 in 2001—far faster
      than the 44% increase in the number of articles published over the same
      period, reports the Wall Street Journal
      in an investigation of 11,600 peer-reviewed scientific journals. And
      with most science built upon the science of others, one paper’s
      retraction can have a snowball effect, taking out dozens of subsequent
      papers. The Mayo Clinic alone lost a decade of research after data about
      using the immune system to fight cancer was discovered to have been
      faked.

      http://www.newser.com/story/125497/science-journals-rife-with-error-fraud.html

    • Oysteria

      “Early results from deep ice-core drilling beneath the Antarctic surface indicate that CO2 concentrations rise as a result of rising temperatures, not the other way around. Oops!”

      ‘Zactly. When the whole global warmenism idea was first gaining traction a few years ago I watched a show where several scientists were somberly explaining to us that we were heading for scorching times because of the CO2 we were releasing into the atmosphere. They all stood around pointing to an ice core sample and explaining that after the end of every warming period we see CO2 levels go up.

      I said, “What?”

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Two separate cool-phase La Niña  (not El Nino, the warm current) events took place in 2011, according to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC). These events affected weather patterns in many parts of the world during the year and dampened the global temperature compared with the record warmth of the previous year, 2010 (which is tied for warmest with 2005). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

    A key point from recent observation is that whatever slight slowing in global warming some groups may have observed in the past decade, it was primarily in the surface temperature data set. The oceans kept warming (see “Sorry Deniers, the Oceans (in their deep but, not necesarily in the currents, until they are released to the surface) are Still Warming as Predicted”

    • Sky__Captain

      You gotta go back about 14 more years with your excuses, Crickmore.

    • Sky__Captain

      And while you’re doing that:

      - cite the scientific study that links the “man-made” part to the “global warming” part with a 95% confidence level.

      - state the ideal temperature of planet Earth.

      Thanks!

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        The ‘ideal temperature’ concept is one I’ve asked a number of times over the years… with no sensible answer.  The closest I ever got was a ” ‘You can’t define a ‘ideal’ temperature’ ” – but if that’s so, then why the assumption that we need to hamstring the world economy to maintain one? 

        • jim_m

          I think what it shows is that the enviro left is fixated on the idea of stasis.  They want to preserve everything exactly as it is today.  They have lost sight of the fact that the earth has constantly changed over time and is continuing to do so.

          They don’t have any idea of what the “ideal” state would be they just don’t want whatever the current state is to change.

          What is scary is that they are willing to unleash massive projects to counter global warming (suggesting filling the sky with particulates to reflect solar radiation etc) that would have potentially huge long term effects and these effects have neither been considered or studied in any way. 

          It reminds me of the soviets draining the Aral Sea in order to create rice farms in the asian deserts.  These people think they know better but if given opportunity to exercise their will they will destroy everything they want to protect.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Think Progress?  Seriously?
      Using a political agenda blog to make a scientific argument is weak sauce, even by your standards, Steve.

  • herddog505

    If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.

    Oh, I think that we can safely rely upon the left and MiniTru (BIRM) to come up with such evidence.  Remember the huge snowstorms a year or two ago?  According to the left, that was “global warming” in action.  O’ course, that was nothing now: as we’ve seen all along, ANY bad weather is “evidence” of global warming.

    Additionally, the left is not above simply manufacturing the evidence when it suits them.  Remember the “hockey stick” and “hide the decline”?

    The whole thing has been a con job from the word go.  Yet, people still believe it.

    Jim Jones didn’t have such devoted cultists.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      As I’ve said before, that’s one of the big problems with computer models.  You may be able to take data from the past, and then construct a program that models that.  The problem occurs when you take that program and then extrapolate the future from the past.

      If you have divergence, your model is crap.  The more divergence, the bigger the steaming pile of guano gets.  The models the IPCC pushed haven’t matched reality.  The seas haven’t risen, the glaciers are still around, the ice pack in the Arctic is heavy, Fairbanks is getting -50 temperatures…

      It’s going to take something worse to convince the AGW cultists.  Perhaps a glacier wiping out Detroit…

      • herddog505

        Oh, that would TOTALLY be due to global warming.  See, increasing temperatures cause melting sea ice, which in turn causes more cloud cover, which in turn causes more rain, which in turn causes more droughts, which in turn causes more CO2, which in turn kills more plants, which in turn causes more farmers to raise animals instead of plants, which in turn causes more cow flatulence, which in turn causes more people to drive SUV’s, whic in turn causes more volcanic eruptions, which in turn causes glaciers to shift, which in turn causes one to destroy Detroit.

        See?  It’s all, like, SCIENCE, man!  Because, like, sciensy scientific experts who wear TOTALLY authentic white coats and write, like, REALLY complicated papers for the TOTALLY honest UN say so.

  • Wild_Willie

    Man the ‘sky is falling’ global warming/ice age alarmists are a stubborn lot. Thank God for those of us who encouraged a second look at the data since so many scientists have ‘fudged’ the numbers to support the claim. ww

  • Sky__Captain

    Where the heck are the leftists babies to (attempt to) answer my questions?

  • Pingback: They’ll Still Be Bleating About Global Warming as the Glaciers Grind Their Bones to Powder | Daily Pundit