October 10, 2009

BBC Climate Correspondent Opens Eyes, Starts Walking Back Global Warming Baloney

EarthNASAHow well I remember it. In April 2006, when Bob Carter, in a UK Telegraph op-ed, observed that there had been no warming of the earth since 1998, global warming advocates screamed that Carter didn’t know what he was talking about; that he was only “a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research,” not a real climatologist; and that anyway, the science was settled, so he (and we) should shut up already.

3-1/2 years later, Paul Hudson, the climate correspondent (at least for now) at no less than the previously climate koolaid-poisoned BBC, without naming him, is acknowledging the correctness (HT Instapundit) of Carter’s observations. The Beeb reporter also concludes …. brace for it …. that “it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” Imagine that.

As I’ve been writing for years, “Consensus, conschmensus.”

Here are selected paragraphs from Hudson’s report:

What happened to global warming?

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. (The contention about 1998 may be incorrect; it IS incorrect in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. — see Update below)

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.

…. 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.

It doesn’t really seem to be much of a “revolution” to admit that Mr. Sun influences global temps, but there it is.

This spreadsheet shows that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions grew from 23.16 billion metric tons in 1998 to 29.20 billion in 2006 — a 26% increase. If manmade gases were causing warming, one would expect that we should have almost literally gone to Hades in a handbasket during that period, and to have burnt to a more serious crisp since then. Obviously, that has hasn’t happened. It hasn’t because the preponderance of the evidence, or at least of the evidence that hasn’t been conveniently lost, seems to support the notion that the idea of man-made global warming may be one of the biggest hoaxes associated with power-grabbing efforts by statists in human history.

Given the evidence, it’s truly frustrating to see this country’s president continue to act as if man-made global warming is an established, irrefutable fact, and, along with his party, continue to insist that draconian cuts in this country’s emissions must be made — even as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) chug merrily along.

When the globalarmists are starting to lose the BBC, you know that their foundations are beginning to crumble. Quick — better pass another bill that no one will have time to read or properly evaluate, and that the U.S. establishment media, still firmly in globaloney’s grip, will cheer.

UPDATE: Thanks to BizzyBlog commenter zf for reminding me that 1934 is the hottest year on record, not 1998, at least in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. I have revised my opening sentence accordingly. BBC’s opening-paragraph contention regarding temperatures in the entire world in 1998 may be incorrect.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Share

8 Comments

  1. “Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases.”

    Not really, greenhouse alarmists have TRIED to rule it out with facts be darned ‘research’ but many scientists from all over the globe have not only shown it to be a factor, but some say a major factor and it seems Mr. Corbyn may have some evidence that it’s the major factor.

    Also, it’s kinda silly to say solar influences have *no* influence in global temp increases/decreases when we learn in elementary school that when the one section of Earth is facing the suns rays it’s warmer, when it rotate away that side gets colder.

    It’s amazing how many global warming facts see themselves as vanguards of objectivie science when they aren’t even aware of grade school science principles. Kinda like when they claim melting ice will raise water levels when anyone with a grade school education has done the experiment where we stick ice in a glass of water, and watch how when the ice cube melts the water level says the same because the volume of the cube and the water it melts into are the same.

    Comment by zf — October 11, 2009 @ 1:30 am

  2. Also, the article writer repeats the old claim, sincerely believed by many including “deniers” but based on old and faulty data, that 1998 was the hottest year on record when actually that was incorrect and revised to 1934 being the hottest year due to new data and corrections.

    Also, he makes other far from settled claims such as “During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly” but I guess we should take any backtracking by the alarmist camp as a blessing.

    Comment by zf — October 11, 2009 @ 1:56 am

  3. There is a fundamental question to which the proponents of man-made climate change seem unable to provide a logical answer. The question is:- if global warming IS caused by man, how do they explain all the previous episodes in the Earth’s evolution, when the climate warmed significantly more than today and yet man did not even exist, so could not be responsible for all those tons of carbon dioxide that are allegedly the cause of global warming.

    Comment by alexei — October 11, 2009 @ 2:04 am

  4. The debate about global warming is over. and the consensus is that it is, was, and always will be a hoax. Those that still cling to the claim that it exists are either ignorant, delusional, hucksters, or economic terrorists. Unfortunately the terrorists run the U.S. government, the U.N., and most of the capitols of Europe. Their real intention is control of the global economy.

    Comment by Joe C. — October 11, 2009 @ 5:48 am

  5. Great information and post. But we, the citizenry, are swimming up stream against the flow overpowering us, which our elected officials encourage and promote. When I read the various news sites, it doesn’t matter the party, all of these knuckleheads line up behind this baloney. You know they get to Washington and do the transformation…just like Al Gore and abortion (remember when old Al was a lily white Evangelical Christian and pro-life :-0)

    At least here in Ohio we must energize the “jokers” in the General Assembly to remain grounded to the truth and fight the monster called “Washington DC.” And this is going to be tough because all of our elected officials from Ohio aspire for one thing, to live and work in DC, Ohio be dammed; isn’t that correct Mr. Husted.

    Comment by Brian — October 11, 2009 @ 6:56 am

  6. #2, thx for the reminder re 1934, and I have updated accordingly. My info indicates that this was a high for the 48 US states and not the world, so Beeb’s contention about 1998 may still be correct, unless you have other info.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 11, 2009 @ 8:50 am

  7. No, you’re right, sorry that I forgot to clarify what I meant by “hottest year on record.” The 1998 year was indeed calculated as the hottest year *in the U.S* and was then revised to 1934 when the data was corrected. However, the old 1998 year was (and still is) touted by alarmists (and by a few mislead skeptics) as being the hottest on record *worldwide.*

    So, until shown otherwise I’m going to conjecture that they either assumed since 1998 “was the hottest year on record” in the US it must have been true worldwide too or that they did not look at the initial reports closely enough. So, either way, if they extrapolated the worldwide temp of 1998 on the 48 United States data than to be fair and honest they need to stop perpetuating that myth and explaining that 1934 was actually the hottest year on record worldwide and that they say worldwide because they assume(d) US temps were reflected all over the globe as well. Either that or admit the 1998 date only applied to the US and was incorrect.

    Comment by zf — October 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

  8. We were just hit by two very strong storms two weeks ago. we never had that in decades. They left our country with still so many flooded areas, a lot were homeless and lost so many loved ones. The effect of those twin storm were devastating. And the news says its all because of global warming.

    Comment by Chineses Translator — October 11, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.