What Happened to Global Warming?

By Paul Hudson

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.

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
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

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.

Read the rest of this article at BBC News.

25 Responses to What Happened to Global Warming?

  1. Neil F. AGWD October 12, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Huh. This is an actual article that someone wrote? And an editor let it be published? Hell… they could have just asked me. I think I have said pretty much everything this article says. Haven’t I?
    Don’t get me wrong I ain’t bashing it, I’m applauding. But I do think this article is about 5-10 years late. But hey, better late than never.

  2. Rob N. Hood October 13, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    Correct me if I’m wrong but the above studies couldn’t have come out with those statements any sooner, due to the ON-GOING RESEARCH THEY WERE CONDUCTING. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY RIDICULOUS IF THEY HAD MADE THOSE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE STUDIES WERE COMPLETE. Ok, that said, correct me if I’m wrong but the term global warming was changed to climate change for reasons mainly not politicial. Some areas of the planet will indeed get colder, if the research on this subject is correct that is. And some will end up drier, and warmer, etc. etc. The point is those changes, while not consistently “warming” around the globe, will if true, cause significant damage to our “normal” environments in many different ways depending on what part of the planet you chose to look at.

  3. Lone Wolf October 13, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    WOW, even Robin Hood is starting to change his argument. Climate change–always has — always will.

  4. Rob N. Hood October 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    I think you need to read it more carefully.

  5. Paul Wenum October 13, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Rob, Define “normal” change? You can’t. Climate change is as stated, normal!. Look out the window. By the way, Al Gore doesn’t answer questions does he. You will eventually see the light someday when you go outside.

  6. Neil F. AGWD October 13, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    So when I said things like this study says back, oh a year or two ago I was ridiculous. But now it’s the BBC saying it, it’s not ridiculous?
    Now what is the AGW hypothesis? It states that the anthropogenic CO2 production was causing GLOBAL temperatures to rise. Right? Did I miss the part where they said that SOME parts of the planet were going to cool, and other parts were going to warm? I don’t think so.
    What does AGW stand for?
    ANTHROPOGENIC (means: caused by man)
    GLOBAL (I’m pretty sure that means the whole bowling ball)
    WARMING (The opposite of cooling)
    Although I have to hand it to you Rob. In one paragraph youv’e managed to split hairs, grasp at straws, backpedal, and eat crow!!!!
    Good job!!!!!!
    Oh and the terminology WAS changed for entirely political reasons. It was changed because the people espousing the AGW theory knew it was BS and they made the change to cover their a**es.

  7. Neil F. AGWD October 13, 2009 at 11:21 pm #


    “Recently, the more politically popular term, climate change, has replaced global warming. Why? One main reason is because the earth is currently cooling.”

    “It is hard to advocate for overbearing regulations that attempt to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions when global temperatures have been stable or declining. In fact, in at least the last seven years, global temperatures have declined, despite increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As it turns out, the term “global warming” is a little inconvenient for doomsayers predicting runaway global temperatures.”

  8. paul wenum October 14, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Neil, I agree. “Global Warming” is now “Climate Change.” Gee whiz, I wonder why the mainstream media/Gore changed it? Duh, it is not rocket science, it is a natural change. Suggest everyone read Spencer as well others..

  9. Rob N. Hood October 19, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    My point was avoided by you guys again as usual. The terminology may have been changed for “political” reasons, but the term change actually reflects the issue more ACCURATELY. That’s all. I’m not at all surprised you automatically presume to somehow KNOW that it was at Gore’s comand that it be changed and that ALL of the media (Liberal controlled of course) obeyed their evil leader. How can you NOT see the childishness (or pure paranoia) in your thinking process?

  10. Karen N. October 19, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    The change in the title to “Climate Change” is totally political. If you still don’t believe we are in a cooling period, ask those in Montana. Then, if you
    still believe our emissions are causing global warming, read the MIT report by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen. This might open your eyes and ears,
    or cause you to bury your head in the sand and plant your feet.

  11. Paul Wenum October 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Thank you Karen! Welcome aboard!!!!

  12. Rob N. Hood October 20, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    So, let me get this straight. All I need to do is talk to some Montanans, and read one report from one scientist and I will be ok, and I will become one of you, and see the error of my ways. Did I mention childishness before? I can now add simple-mindedness to that too.

  13. Bruce Dixon October 20, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    Anyone trying to get to the truth behind climate change could be fooled by some misleading comments of doubters. For example, in the Gordon Brown video, a chart is inserted purporting to show that Arctic ice is growing, not shrinking. The chart shows an approximate 6-month growth in Arctic sea ice. Anyone not stopping to think might be mislead by this nonsense. The chart merely shows normal, short-term fluctuations (up and down), but says nothing about the long-term trend, which is less ice, not more. BKD

    • Chaz October 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

      So where were you during the ice age? Good thing the climate changes or we wouldn’t be here right now talking about the climate changing. My father told me a story about one summer in the 30s, which it never really warmed up and they actually had snow in july. I suppose a ripple effect may have had something to do with that? He also told me years before summers were hot 100’s go figure…….where’s the data to support that event?

  14. Paul Wenum October 20, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Remember, it is not what you say, but how you say it. Same with the written word. “Global Warming” scary, to Climate Change.” Nice ring to it I must say. Typical Media elites!

  15. Jeff October 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Personally I believe they are deceiving you. It’s another fight with each other tactic. The reason the planet is cooling is because of weather modification. Look up. Studies show most don’t. I’m 46 and I do not remember witnessing crisscross patterns over the city. I’ve lived in Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Peace River, AB, Toronto and I’ve taken many a picture. Loved photograph from a young age. I have never seen trails of vapor that start and stop over my head in any of my photo. In any of these cities. I’ve looked, there are no chem-trails in any of my pictures and I love landscape shots. These are recent and they grow and spread across the sky. They must be having an effect on climate. It has purpose and they are laid out in none flight paths. I’ve even witnessed the same jet fly in one direction, turn off the spray. Bank to the right. Come in over Winnipeg in a different direction the turn the spray right back on. Then shut off again the bank again. This is my video.

    So yes their efforts to cool the planet is an attempt to keep people like ourselves distracted while moving ahead. Always just ahead so they have time to implement their plan. World domination. The best way I can help is spread the news. Best hope to all.

  16. Rob N. Hood October 21, 2009 at 8:59 am #

    Isn’t Climate Change less scary than Global Warming. So why would they change it to a less scary name by your “logic”. Of course that doens’t add up and as usual you are talking in circles. And Chaz are you really that simple-minded? Come on.

  17. Allan A October 21, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    I don’t mean to step on toes here, I just have intentions of voicing my own opinion on this issue. And, no I’m not a scientist, but I do know how to look at history and understand that it usually is a predictor of the future. I for one do believe that their will be climate change. Just look at the history of our planet. It runs in cycles. I also have studied many publications and studies. And not a single one of them can convince me that it is “mans” fault that our climate is changing! The history just does not support it!

  18. Richard Blenz October 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    If you bemoan the loss of your house in the Mississippi flood plain, then move out! If your vineyard was destroyed by the volcano that you planted on, then move! If you fear the tornados in Kansas, then move! If you don’t like the shakes along the San Andrias Fault in California, then move to Florida; they have never had a quake. If you lost your home in Key West because of a slight blow then move! If you built New York City along the Atlantic Ocean, then be ready to move it when the sea returns to a higher level, as it has done many times in the past.
    We as earth occupiers must learn to live with Nature, not in opposition. If we destroy the forests we can expect Nature to compensate, possibly in ways we won’t like. If you damaged the barrier islands off shore of the East Coast and now the sea is battering your home, tough! Don’t try to modify the shore to prevent more loss, move!
    By all means let us not use natural occurrences as disaster warnings, then pass freedom destroying laws to solve the problem. There is very little that man can do to cause, or to keep, Nature from wreaking havoc. We can only step aside and hope for the best.
    Have a warm winter.

  19. Rob N. Hood October 22, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    Jeff- Watched your video and guy it does NOT show any plane turning on and off its “chem-trail”. It’s just normal exhaust and water vapor that comes out of normal jets. I never understood the deal with people getting worked up over this- very odd indeed. Now if you have a video showing the turning on and off, and the banking and coming around, then you might have something of interest. Besides- why wouldn’t they simply do it at night, then no one would ever see anything? Get another hobby.

    • Jeff October 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

      It’s not a hobby. It is years of study. Please don’t judge when you haven’t done the research. Here are 2 other short videos taken on the same day.
      Notice the curve in the chemtrail in the first video. The crew realized they were still turning and shut the spray off. Then started them back up fully after they straighten out. Plus Winnipeg skies are not under any know commercial flight path. Look at a map. You’ll see why. Again do the research before you shoot down someones ideas. Both Canada and the US have signed a treaty to consult on each others weather modification programs.

      United States Patent 5003186 to spray aluminum and other chemicals into the atmosphere to curb global warming.


  20. paul wenum October 23, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Robby Boy, Jeff has his own opinion just like your wacky thought process. You have a problem with that? Oh, that’s right BS prevails. Go to bed.

  21. Rob N. Hood November 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    So Jeff, what exactly are they spraying us with, and why?

  22. Rob N. Hood November 1, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    So Jeff, what exactly are they spraying us with, and why? Ok, I just read the patent article and it is interesting and appears real. But my criticism remains the same. The other two videos you post do not show anything unusual or that couldn’t be explained by normal airline flights. And correct me if I’m wrong here, but why wouldn’t “they” simply fly these spraying flights at night?? Or maybe they do and your chem-trails are what’s left over? But you chem-trail people always talk about seeing them doing it. I don’t buy that- you are seeing regular jet airliners. I’m sorry but your videos show nothing to convince me otherwise.

  23. paul wenum November 19, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    He has an opinion just like you. Let it lay.

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