TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Is global warming a myth?

Published 10th October 2009 - 10 comments - 3946 views -

There has been no increase in global temperatures in the past 11 years. What's more the warmest year recorded globally in the past decade was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998.  Am I quoting the usual denialists? Actually, no. It's the BBC that's now asking What happened to global warming?

Anyone reading the article is bound to conclude that there are some serious questions to be asked of those who have been whipping up the warming fever of late. And the piece is filled with juicy items that are sure to put the cat among the pigeons. For example: "To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

But this is the best bit: "Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction... 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."

Wednesday, 28 October, Imperial College London. It's a date for the diary. We'll have to be there. The debate is getting hotter. And if the climate change models are wrong…

Category: Climate Reporting, | Tags: mythology, reality, fever, hype, models, cooling,



Comments

Vanderhaeghen on 10th October 2009:

Ah, science debates. I get confused by them. Anyway, what was also in the article was this:

“The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.”

Diego Casaes Silva on 10th October 2009:

Well, they might be right about this, BUT we don’t have the right to use natural resources the same way we are doing now. That’s why I think the campaign for climate change is quite confuse. We should focus on saving the environment and promoting a better way of life with regards to sustainability. After all, there are more species in the planet that also have the right to spend their lives in their preserved environment. Mankind is killing the earth, and whether there is climate change or not, pollution, droughts, deforestation is sufficient to fuel a serious discussing and a fair agreement in the COP15.

=)

Diego Casaes Silva on 10th October 2009:

I meant “discussion”.

By the way, maybe we should conduct a survey among the competitors and bring some results on what the community really thinks if the idea behind the expression “climate change”.

Eamonn Fitzgerald on 10th October 2009:

And if those of us who are interested in the subject are confused about what is really meant by the term “climate change”, imagine the situation of all those who are more interested in football, porn and playing the lottery? Who is going to explain the concept to those voters? For many people, “climate change” means weather—not some thing that will have an impact on the taxes the pay, the kind of light bulbs they are allowed to use, the price of their cheap flights to the sun, the size of the cars they can aspire to buy and so on.

Vanderhaeghen on 10th October 2009:

Eamonn, you are absolutely right. Therefore I don’t involve myself in the scientific debates around climate change until the scientific community decides otherwise (IPCC).

Mike on 11th October 2009:

“...we don’t have the right to use natural resources the same way we are doing now…”

This is what environuts actually believe.

“Therefore I don’t involve myself in the scientific debates around climate change until the scientific community decides otherwise (IPCC).”

The IPCC is unequivocally a political organisation, with no scientific credentials whatsoever. On their website they state:

“[The IPCC] does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”

The IPCC proclaims 2500 scientists were involved in the making of its first assessment report. The actual number is 5. Regardless, even that fake number crumbles beneath the weight of 31000 scientists who have spoken out against the fraud of anthropogenic global warming, in the Oregon Petition.

You will read this and you will still refuse to acknowledge reality. You will make some excuse, you say you refuse to involve yourself in scientific debate. There has never been any “debate” on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. You all appeal to the supposed authority of the IPCC and proclaim that the debate which never took place, is over.

A suggestion to environuts concerned about their carbon footprint. Kill yourself.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 12th October 2009:

In the British TV series “I Claudius” there is a witty line saying “The old times aren’t what they used to be any more.”... Equally: future warming is not what it used to be any more.

The 1998 year was very hot, due to El Nino etc. And we have not exceeded that temperature since then.

I cannot resist to put a link to my blog post on the same topic:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/global_warming_was_cancelled._go_home1

Jodi Bush on 13th October 2009:

@Vitezslav - you quote the fact about El Nino as if to suggest that 1998 was an aberration, completely at odds with temperatures during the rest of the decade. Yet 2005 was almost identically as hot, and 2002, 2003 and 2004 were some of the hottest years on record.

See my response if you’re interested: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/the_devil_is_in_the_detail/

Vitezslav Kremlik on 13th October 2009:

@ Jodi: We two have already discussed this one, remember? The last 10 years surely are hotter than previous decades. But the temperatures have not risen since 1998. The formulation “hottest years on record” is awfully misleading to uninformed readers. It creates an image as if something is rising.

Cameron Callope on 16th December 2009:

Thank you all for your input on this. I have been very very confused on this whole thing. Which made me come to some questions myself in relation to “Gobal Warming”.

Thank you all for your words and thoughts.

C.
(Australia)

This article is archived. Comments are closed.