Global Warming is History.

Over the past year, a remarkable cooling trend has brought ocean surface temperatures down to temperatures reached in the 1940s. Now, land temperatures have followed. Planet-wide land temperatures were actually significantly *below* the 20th-century average. This is not a refutation of global warming by an attempt to debate how sound the alarmists' dataset is. This is based on the same data sets used by Al Gore, Dr. Hansen, and the IPCC: Global Warming is, for now, history.

Global temperatures are about the coolest measured since 1994, about the same as the phenomenally large "La Nina" of 2000. By 1994, climatologists were warning of global warming, but there was a frank rebuttal: the earth was no warmer, yet, than it had been in the 1940s. There had been warming from about 1900 to 1944, but this was before significant amounts of green house gases were released. From the 1940s through the 1970s, the globe actually cooled slightly. And from around 1980 to the early 1990s, there had been some slight warming, according to problematic earth-bound sensors anyway, back to the peaks reached in 1944.

Then it happened: The mid 90s were progressively warmer (we're talking hundredths of degrees, mind you.) But 1998 saw a massive warming event called "El Nino." The following year, "La Nina" brought temperatures back to where they had been a few years earlier, but at the start of the new millennium, temperatures rose to near the heights of El Nino... and stayed there.

Finally, the predictions of global warming seemed to be coming true. Plus, even though the warming had been only a quarter of a degree since 1944, they had statistical grounds for asserting the warming was accelerating, and were soon predicting that the next century could see temperatures soar as much as ten degrees.

When the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changed issued their report in early 2007, they had noted that 2006 was the second warmest year in history. The hockey stick presentation the IPCC had used to assert that the current temperatures were warmer than the Medieval Warm period of a millennium ago was quickly shown to be completely fraudulent; A statistical model had been conconcted which made it impossible to demonstrate historic warm periods, no matter what the data entered was.

But even before that, I had said to myself, "But still... there's an El Nino again now, and the Earth is still no warmer than it was a decade ago. How is that consistent with an accelerating warm trend?"

The statistics available were ambiguous. On the one hand, the Earth was no warmer than it had been a decade earlier. On the other hand, what had been a phenomenal aberration in 1998 had become commonplace in the new millennium. So I started to watch the new data emerge, using ocean surface temperatures because these generated less statistical noise and showed clearer trends.

A La Nina event (which causes cool temperatures in the Pacific) developed, as was no surprise. (I'd almost say these could be thought of as rebounding events after a La Nina, except earth scientists of all stripes would clobber me with ways in which this analogy was misleading... it's not actually known why La Nina events follow El Nino events.)

The La Nina event of 2007 brought statistical balance to the El Nino event of 2006. Although I may have grabbed some attention with vanity headlines declaring the oceans were cooling, my reports to Free Republic presented this data as merely demonstrating that there had been no accelerating of global warming.

This was certainly big news: If no acceleration takes place, global warming is harmless. And additional degree Celsius over the next century would probably be a good thing, and the increased carbon dioxide which caused it would have beneficial effects to agriculture which would far exceed what few negative effects might occur.

But now something far more startling has happened: The El Nino has dissipated, but global ocean waters have still continued to cool. By this, I mean that the sea surface temperatures, globally averaged and adjusted for seasonal variations, have declined. What's more, land temperatures, which had shown a greater warming trend over the past few decades, plummeted, from a near-record high last February (according to some data sets, it was a record high), to temperatures considerably below the 20th century average this past January.

I will publish another report when the February data is complete. So far, it appears that most of the Indian ocean, the second largest ocean in the world, has suddenly cooled. And the rest of the world's oceans don't seem to rebounding in temperature any. So I'm expecting I'll have still further cooling to report. ----------------- Note: Free Republic requires sources to have URLs starting with "Http://" so the source link is merely the page which links to the data. The actual data are from these pages:

Global land temperatures (land station monitoring): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Global ocean temperatures (sea surface): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Total Global temperatures (weighted average of the above tables): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

There was a court case brought against Algore in Great Britian and the “ruling” had to do with Al and his friends’ attempt to “politically indoctrinate” little children which is ruled to be an illegal practice there.

The “scientific errors” they discovered in Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Algore.

Algore’s attorneys didn’t even deny that the movie promotes political views. It also promotes specific PARTISAN (’RAT) political solutions.

The judge found, among other theings, that in Algore’s movie, AIT, “science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ...”

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON

Stuart Dimmock - Claimant — Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant

-vs-

Sec. State for Education and Skills Defendant — Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant

[Judge] Burton:

Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth (”AIT”), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to “political indoctrination” and to the “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. The provisions read as follows:

406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid … the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

I viewed the film at the parties’ request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:

“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”

... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. .................”

In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:

“Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public.”

After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:

“....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change...”

The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:

“8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that parts of the Film contained views about public policy and how we should respond to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science.”

...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...

Partisan

... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be “one sided”. Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

“(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do “right” as opposed to “wrong.”

This is clearly a useful analysis.

Local educational authority to forbid the promotion of partisan views in the teaching of any subject in the school

“....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, “political indoctrination”. If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.

If on the other hand a teacher, in the course of a school day and as part of the syllabus, presents to his pupils, no doubt with the appropriate setting and with proper tuition and debate, a film or document which itself promotes in a partisan way some political view, that cannot possibly in my judgment be the mischief against which the statute was intended to protect pupils.

It would not only lead to bland education, but to education which did not give the opportunity to pupils to learn about views with which they might, vehemently or otherwise, either agree or disagree. I conclude that the mere distribution by the Defendant to schools to facilitate their showing the film, and accompanied by guidance, to which I shall refer, is not per se, or irremediably, a promotion of those partisan political views.

Balanced Presentation

.....the issue of whether there is facilitated by the DES what is forbidden, namely the promotion by the school of partisan political views, depends in substantial part on the context, and in this case on its Guidance Note. Such Guidance Note is also obviously relevant in relation to s407. On occasions during the hearing, Mr Chamberlain indicated that there were matters that could be left to the good sense and the knowledge of teachers, whether of science, geography or of citizenship. Trust in such teachers is of course, one hopes, always a given. .....

.....There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory – if it were a political one – that the moon is not made out of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word “balanced” in s407 means nothing more than fair and dispassionate.

The Film

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ...”

The Errors [snipped]

The Guidance

“... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website..... it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 ‘errors’, the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores’s ‘political’ argumentation. ...”

“...One particular change in the section on “Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change” is of some significance:

“..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

The amended Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:

“[Schools] must bear in mind the following points

* AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)

* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;

* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore’s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion;

* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

“...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government’s adherence is to the IPCC views - ...and that there are views of “sceptics” who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context.

“... It is plain that the original press releases of February were enthusiastically supportive of the film, and did initially indicate an intent to “influence”. ....As Mr Downes has pointed out, if it has taken this hearing to identify and correct the flaws, it is impossible to think that teachers could have done so untutored. I am satisfied that, because insufficient attempt was made to counter the more one-sided views of Mr Gore, and, to some extent, by silence in the Guidance Note, those views were adopted, or at any rate discussion of them was not facilitated (and no adequate warning was given), there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated. Indeed the spirit of co-operation in which this hearing has been carried through is a tribute to constructive litigation.

In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant’s agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application, save in relation to costs, on which I shall hear Counsel.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.