Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global Warming Ended in 1998
Opinion Telegraph ^ | 9APR06 | Bob Carter

Posted on 04/11/2006 10:00:41 PM PDT by freddymuldoon

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter (Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; globullshitwarming; hotair

1 posted on 04/11/2006 10:00:41 PM PDT by freddymuldoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon

We're all going to burn to death bump.


2 posted on 04/11/2006 10:05:16 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon

Al Gore, white courtesy phone please.


3 posted on 04/11/2006 10:07:03 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon
There is a very reasonable explanation for this.

I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee
I'm going to Louisiana my true love for to see
It rained all night the day I left the weather it was dry
Sun so hot I froze to death Suzanna don't you cry


It's so damned hot it's getting colder. Right?
4 posted on 04/11/2006 10:11:02 PM PDT by Jaysun (If anything is possible, then it's possible that nothing is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon

Thanks for posting this.


5 posted on 04/11/2006 10:19:06 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB

My pleasure!


6 posted on 04/11/2006 10:20:17 PM PDT by freddymuldoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: i_dont_chat; freddymuldoon

Ahem. 1998 Bump!


7 posted on 04/11/2006 10:25:19 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon

If a climate station in Great Britain indicates that warming is not increasing, this could be a good thing, or it could be a bad thing. I will skip the good and point out the bad, hoping that it turns out to be wrong.

There have been some recent indications that the Gulf Stream has been weakening. This could be why it hasn't gotten warmer at that climate station. What is the Gulf Stream weakening. Here is a bad scenario. When water moves north into the Arctic it freezes, the water underneath becomes saltier and heavier. It sinks to the bottom and flows south to the Equator, where water is heated and flows north as the Gulf Stream. If it gets so warm that not much water freezes, then the water doesn't get saltier, doesn't sink, doesn't flow south, and the Gulf Stream gets weak and in the past has stopped altogether, leading to extreme cold in northern Europe. I hope this is not what is happening now.


8 posted on 04/11/2006 10:31:54 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
9 posted on 04/11/2006 10:43:31 PM PDT by Eurotwit (WI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon; 4CJ
THE TRUTH!!! Pinged you, 4CJ, because Truth is so sweet, so refreshing, so rare...NICE!

Thanx, freddymuldoon! Keep up the good work! YES!

10 posted on 04/12/2006 2:54:13 AM PDT by BikerGold (Ruach/Pneuma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon; Ernest_at_the_Beach

Great post! EATB, this is a ping for your list.


11 posted on 04/12/2006 5:36:41 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (Golden immigration rule: You have only the rights we would if we entered Mexico illegally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon

Global Warming causes Global Cooling.


12 posted on 04/12/2006 6:18:02 AM PDT by Teletubbed (Multiculturalism, (coll. Paradise), [Successor of Communism], Leftist-approved, Islamic Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
If a climate station in Great Britain indicates that warming is not increasing, this could be a good thing, or it could be a bad thing. I will skip the good and point out the bad, hoping that it turns out to be wrong.

This is the same mistake that advocates of global warming make. Trying to take a localized trend and adopt it globally. You are possibly right about a more likely ICE age though. The only certain thing is that Climate Change is the rule and not the exception. The Earth is always changing and trying to "preserve" present conditions, is quite impossible.

I reccomend Michael Creighton's latest "novel" to any that are interested in the THEORY of global warming.

To say its an effectice hit piece on TTOGW is an understatement. My wife has been preaching TTOGW for years, and is an environmentalist. She read the book and called BS on Al Gore. I was pleasantly stunned.

13 posted on 04/12/2006 8:56:15 AM PDT by ottersnot ("Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freddymuldoon
Do you mean that liberals now will not have to inhale their flatulence any more?
14 posted on 04/12/2006 8:58:27 AM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerGold
THE TRUTH!!! Pinged you, 4CJ, because Truth is so sweet, so refreshing, so rare...NICE!

Bwahahahaha! All those liberals proven wrong. So sad </sarcasm>

15 posted on 04/12/2006 9:45:52 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson