Big Chill on Global Warming

From the Washington Examiner

Something important is happening when even the BBC is compelled to ask, as it did this week, “What happened on global warming?” The British news organization has heretofore insisted that the scientific consensus was cemented long ago that global warming is real and is mainly caused by human use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Put simply, what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998, recent peer-reviewed research has uncovered the decisive influence of hot and cold cycles in the oceans on land temperatures, and growing numbers of scientists with unquestioned credentials are stepping forward to question the conventional wisdom.

But reaching a new consensus will be exceedingly difficult because the raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit acknowledged in August that it discarded data that, in addition to the IPCC report, has been cited by other international studies as the main justification for severe restrictions on carbon emissions worldwide. This development raises more troubling doubts about global warming just as scientists and policymakers are expected to call for harsh new limits on energy use in its name when they meet in December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Read the rest of the story.

25 Responses to Big Chill on Global Warming

  1. Neil F. AGWD October 18, 2009 at 12:23 am #

    The Arctic is melting rapidly. We are in danger of accelerated global warming because the tundra is melting releasing, methane and CO2 that will cause a positive feedback.
    Sound familiar? That’s what the alarmists are saying. And it is pure fiction. If it were true the little blue line in this graph: would be below the the dotted line that it is clearly above. But they say it anyway, because that’s what they do…..they lie.

    • alexcanuck October 18, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

      Your point would be true only if these things go in a straight line. Don’t mistake weather (short term unpredictable) with long term climate trends!
      You are deploying the standard ploy (admittedly used by both sides on the debate, to the great detriment of clarity) of picking small points and extrapolating in error. The average is dropping dramatically. Don’t mistake a brief bounce for a trend.
      Do you do this in stock markets?

      • Neil F. AGWD October 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

        Yeah, I’m not mistaking weather for long term climate trends there, alexcanuck. I am pointing out that the dire predictions of the IPCC, Al Gore, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen et al have not materialized.
        Now you sound like you are a reasonable fellow, I just want to say that I’M NOT HERE TO BE REASONABLE!!!!!!!
        Was it reasonable for Al Gore and other AGW alarmists to proclaim that “the science is settled, the debate is over, the planet is warming and we are the cause”? Was it reasonable for climate alarmists to equate climate change deniers with holocaust deniers? Is it reasonable for climate alarmists to still claim that the planet is in danger from CO2, and call it a pollutant, when it hasn’t warmed for an entire decade? No, no, and no.
        I’ll tell you what you should do there Mr. reasonable…. GET OFF THE FENCE!!!!!!!! PICK A SIDE AND CLIMB DOWN!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Rob N. Hood October 19, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Nice Neil- NOT. Anyway, it’s funny that you posted a pic, because I was going to compare you, me, and Paul with the Three Stooges, since we have been so alone on this site for so long. I even had decide which one we represent of the three. Now I see that my vision of you is accurate even on that level. Here’s something on “trends”. Neil, you’d have to have been a Liberal for the past two decades to truly know what “beign reasonable” is all about. You’ve asked/forced to do so only the last year and a half and you are already coming apart at the seams. Again- no surprise there.

    A new report in the scientific journal Nature indicates that the last decade has seen, on average, more frequent hurricanes than any time in the last 1,000 years. The last period of similar activity occurred during the Medieval Warm Period.

    The study is not definitive, but it is a unique piece of work that combines an analysis of sediment cores from inland lakes and tidal marshes with computer modeling and finds a “striking consistency” between the two, the authors suggest.

    The use of sediment cores to place and date ancient storms — called “paeleotempestology” — is becoming an increasingly useful tool in the broader effort to try to reconstruct the history of hurricane activity in order to better predict a future potentially influenced by climate change. . .’

    ‘. . . Says Alley: “We’re eventually going to have good models of our climate system, and when policy makers say, ‘Why should we believe that model?’ we can say, ‘Because we ran it for the last 1,000 years, and it matches what happens.’ “

    • Neil F. AGWD October 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

      I don’t think that’s funny Rob. In fact I think it’s below the belt. If you put up your picture, I have enough class to not ridicule you on how you look. I think it’s childish.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 20, 2009 at 1:27 pm #
      “This is a hot button in the argument for global warming,” said Lund. “Climatologists reporting to the U.S. Senate as recently as this summer testified to the exact opposite of what we find. Many researchers have maintained that warming waters of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.”
      Rob, this is the rest of the story.

  3. Chris ygtbkm October 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    Yeah I can see it, We’ll cut carbon emissions from all countries, kill all the cows, and after 100 years we’ll have a 1.2% drop in atmospheric “greenhouse” gasses… Then one day… a volcano will burp (not blow… just burp) and undo everything you’ve worked so hard for.

    The truth is that nature is so much bigger than these alarmists will ever admit. There’s is so much about this earth that we will never understand, not to mention effects of sun and “cosmic rays”, orbital decay and on and on and on. There are far too many variables that we don’t know enough about to possible make a “climate change” weather model. Even more, we can’t predict accurately what the weather will be like tomorrow or next week. Who do these people think they are trying to predict weather 100 or even 10 years from now. It’s absurd.

    We laugh at assumptions scientists made 200 years ago and 200 years from now they’ll be laughing at the assumptions we’ve made.

  4. Rob N. Hood October 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Perhaps, but actually it were mostly the scientists that were CORRECT that were disregarded, imprisoned or executed. Such as those who said the earth wasn’t round, right? Many people did laugh at them, but they were right weren’t they? All new things are pretty much ridiculed like that at first, especially by those who know the least about it. And especially if it somehow threatens the status quo. What is stupid is disregarding somehting just because you don’t want it to be true. It is easier to remain in denial, or so it seems easier on the surface. Hopefully someday we will be laughing about this- but if YOU’RE wrong, we won’t be laughing that’s for certain.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

      “actually it were mostly the scientists that were CORRECT that were disregarded, imprisoned or executed.”
      You mean like people who went against the CONSENSUS, Like Galilao? A majority of scientists around the world believed (sound familiar) we were the center of the universe, and everything revolved around the Earth. Wow Rob, that is a terrible argument to choose.

  5. Paul Wenum October 19, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    Robbie Boy, You sound like Al Gore and his movie. Do you ever answer a direct question? I know Gore does not. Wonder why?

  6. Keith October 19, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    I was fully on board the climate change juggernaut way back in the 1980’s. Of course it wasn’t much of a juggernaut then. Why was I ? Because in about 1983 the UN published a report warning that an estimated 53 million people risked becoming “climate refugees” due to adverse environmental effects of CO2 : sea level rises, cataclysmic weather events, temperature rises, crop failures, etc. This was expected around about now. And like clockwork the UN has now published a report announcing that there have been 53 million climate refugees. Where did they find these people ? In their estimates in the original 1980’s report of course ! Yet no one has challenged the UN to provide any substantiation to their outlandish claims. Where are these 53 million ? Where are they living now ? How did such a mass migration occur without the climate change friendly media swarming all over it ? Hmmm. Sorry for troubling the “scientists” here with data.

    Rob N, I agree that there is an enormous amount of denial in the so called debate, especially from the vested climate change interests. Now repeat after me : the UN is always right, the UN is always right………

  7. Mark Thomas October 20, 2009 at 12:34 am #

    I have been pleased each year since the hurricane season of 2004, the year Katrina wrecked New Orleans, to see the media and climate change people
    eat their words. That is, if you all can remember the barrage of predictions, made by all the experts, that the 2004 hurricane season was just the beginning of more severe hurricane seasons the world over due to global warming. Here we are five years later and not a single hurricane has hit the United States since Katrina. There were a few that tried but these weakened to tropical storms or less, but, boy, did the national media and local news try to scare the hell out of us. They are relegating themselves to the “Boy who Cried Wolf”.

    • Ginny November 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

      Just to correct the statement of no hurricanes hitting the US since Katrina, there have been a number of them. Katrina was in Sept. of ’05. Since that time, 6 Hurricanes have hit the US. 2005 included Rita (Cat 3) and Wilma (Cat 3). Humberto (Cat 1) hit in Sept. 2007, Dolly (Cat 1) in July 2008, Gustav (Cat 3) in Sept. 2008, and Ike (Cat 2) in Sept 2008. I live in Southeast Texas, approx. 50 miles, give or take, North of Houston. Although a Cat 2 doesn’t seem like much, you should try living through it. Even being this far from Houston, Ike hit Galveston as a Cat 2 and we had winds for about 8-10 hours. There was substatial damage done in this area alone. Galveston and a nearby peninsula were devastated. I’m not saying man caused this, I’m simply correcting the above statement. Some of these storms, not to mention Katrina, set records. In addition to these US hitting hurricanes, Dean and Felix, both in 2007, were Cat 5 hurricanes.

  8. Rob N. Hood October 20, 2009 at 9:37 am #

    I did answer the question, Pauly Boy. You are the one who doesn’t like to do that. And Keith, I never said the UN is always right. Al I am saying is you guys MAY BE wrong. But you never consider that possiblity, you want to belive in some kind of MASSIVE scam/hoax, the likes of which if true has never been perpetrated before on such a Grand scale. It takes some level of paranoia to believe that, in addition to a serious dislike for anything Liberal. If it is a hoax we will find out sooner than later, correct? In the meantime you guys could fight real injustice and real fraud but I guess that wouldn’t be as easy or as fun…

  9. Chips October 20, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    Oh hell. I was going to comment, but I lost my notes.

  10. Rob N. Hood October 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    While your point about the consensus has initial appeal it side-steps the issue as usual. The main reason is this: the scientists who started talking about this issue WERE IN THE MINORITY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND SINCE IT WAS A VERY DISTURBING TOPIC OTHERS ALSO STUDIED IT OVER THE YEARS, AND IT IS ALL OF THESE SCIENTISTS PUT TOGETHER NOW THAT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY. Just because they are the majoity means nothing except that they are in the majoity. And as far a modern science goes that is a pretty powerful thing. Scientists in the old days were always in the minority, and it was the powerful who tried to supprress them, same thing is happening here, that’s all. Like they say the more things change they more they stay the same.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 20, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

      That’s all fine and dandy Rob. But show me where the planet is warming, and I will shut up. Back in 87′ they said 6.4 degrees celcius by the end of the next century. So you show me where the average global temp has risen .64 degrees C. in the last ten years and I’ll shut up.
      You posted a story about the frequency of hurricanes has risen. I posted one that gives more information as in the frequency is higher but the intensity of the storms have not gone up. I think you have blinders on Rob. You only see what you want to see. It’s called a confirmation bias. I do not have such an impedement. If you show me where the Earth has warmed, I will shut up.

  11. Paul Wenum October 20, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    Robbie Boy is like a bad rash that will not go away. It is always left versus right. Robbie Boy get off your talking points from the DNC and speak for yourself. You annoy me.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

      Paul, Rob is Rob. He won’t change. He’s trying to educate us, because he is so superior to us stupid knuckle-draggin-scotch-breath-red-face-nazi-racist-biggot-homophobe-conservatives. Don’t you get it? You should be honerd to be talked down to by Rob, he’s sooooo open minded…………………….NOT!!!!

  12. Rob N. Hood October 21, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    It’s funny how thin-skinned you babies really are. Like you guyes are going to change any time soon. Ha ha. All I’ve ever done is follow the most rational and logical info. could that ever be wrong? Sure it could, and I admit that. But I’ll put my money on that side every time verses the side of emotion which is what you guys do, every time. That’s all.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 21, 2009 at 9:25 am #

      “Show me where the planet is warming, and I will shut up. Back in 87′ they said 6.4 degrees celcius by the end of the next century. So you show me where the average global temp has risen .64 degrees C. in the last ten years and I’ll shut up.
      You posted a story about the frequency of hurricanes has risen. I posted one that gives more information as in the frequency is higher but the intensity of the storms have not gone up. I think you have blinders on Rob. You only see what you want to see. It’s called a confirmation bias. I do not have such an impedement. If you show me where the Earth has warmed, I will shut up.”

      That’s what I posted just a few comments ago. Don’t you want shut me up Rob? What are you afraid of? Are you not up to the challenge? That’s what I just did Rob, I challenged you to show me where the averge global temp has risen by .64 degrees C. You don’t win by walking away from the game, you forfeit when you do that. But I already know what the answer is. You can’t show me wher the temperature has risen because it hasn’t.

  13. Rob N. Hood October 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    No I can’t, you win Neil. You are the AGW God. Some kind of genius. Oh, wait, when you confirmed that the number of hurricanes has increased but then you have to add your own little extra bit to make you feel better about it… that the Intesnsity, hasn’t increased. Who has the confirmation bias Neil? Oh no, Neil, not you!

    • Neil F. AGWD October 21, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

      Not a genius. Just right. You have the grace of a bird flying into a pane of glass Rob.

      “Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs.”

      Let me point out how you are flawed in your reasoning:
      “Oh, wait, when you confirmed that the number of hurricanes has increased but then you have to add your own little extra bit to make you feel better about it… that the Intesnsity, hasn’t increased.”
      You are the one who is not looking for, and undervaluing the fact that the intensity of hurricanes has not increased. As you may recal the prediction was for the frequency AND intensity of hurricanes would increase:
      “Several peer-reviewed studies show a clear global trend toward increased intensity of the strongest hurricanes over the past two or three decades. The strongest trends are in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”

      That is to show that I’m not making it up. And me pointing out that this above prediction is wrong is not a confirmation bias. It’s called looking at ALL the facts. In fact, to show that I do not have confirmation bias, I readily admit that the prediction of increased frequency was correct. Albeit that the REASON for the increase in frequency is not because of warming…. because there hasn’t been any warming. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Right?

    • Neil F. AGWD October 21, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

      No. That would be AGWG. I’m just an AGWD.

  14. Rob N. Hood October 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Ok, whatever. The fact that you have to add somthing to a fact that doesn’t coincide with your beliefs to make it more platable for you was my point. You do it all the time. Anyone can, it’s not hard to do. It just seems desperate, and hypocritical when you say I have “confirmation bias.” I don’t care what the “prediction” was. So the scientific prediction didn’t come true 100%. When does that ever happen? Probably almost never would be my guess. Clutch onto your tidbits of reality, be my guest.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.