The IPCC is having a hard time disguising the fact that the planet is not in fact overheating
UN Trapped in Climate Turmoil – CHURCHVILLE, VA—The man-made warming activists at the UN are trapped in turmoil over how to deal with the earth’s lack of warming since 1998. A week or so ago, the UN climate panel circulated a draft statement that would have admitted we’re unlikely to have any further earth-warming for the next 30 years “because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability.”
The BBC’s environmental reporter Richard Black reported that he’d received a copy of that draft. Black said he expected member governments to reject the statement, however, because it would embarrass the first-world governments’ green energy subsidies and taxes agenda. It would also have finally killed the world’s climate-terror campaign.
In fact, NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory had already told us months ago to expect moderate global cooling for the next three decades due to a quiet period on the sun, and a consequent cooling of the Pacific Ocean’s huge heat mass.
Searching for a way out of the non-warming trap, one of the Intergovernmental Panel’s lead science authors announced that the climate computers had always correctly predicted non-warming lulls like ours. (We just missed that clause in the UN’s earlier press releases about the soon-to-be parboiled planet.) (Dennis Avery, CFP)
“Hide the decline.” “No wait! Instead of trying to hide it let’s just say we predicted it all along. So much easier.” “Tell the we knew it but didn’t want to tell them,.. it would just confuse them, the poor peasants.”
“Brilliant Phil!” “Thanks Michael.”
Mr. Milloy:
I propose a change in name that accounts for both man-made warming and man-made cooling (as ity suits the IPCC): Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations (The acronym explains the science.)
Very appropriate.
The lack of warming since 1998 would, in the real world, invalidate every one of the 51 or so climate models the warmists rely upon to predict the future catastrophe of global warming. But, alas, they do not live in the real world. Now we have the UC Berkeley Study (BEST) that managed to find a way to average the data such that the lack of warming since 1998 is replaced by yet a new ‘hockey stick’. Then they went public with statements that the data show there is no longer any reason to doubt the existence of man-made global warming. They appear to think the public is too uneducated to recognize the ‘post hoc, propter hoc’ logical fallacy. Even if we accepted their averaging trick as valid (its not, the raw data still shows a flat temp trend since 1998), the presence of warming does not prove that it is man-made. This has been the slight-of-hand in the AGW argument since the beginning. It is also known as the false cause fallacy, and (my favorite) the ‘flies cause garbage’ argument.
I used to think the AGW people were just mistaken. With this, I am now convinced AGW is now–and always has been–a hoax.
Wow,
Who would have thought, the Sun makes Earth hotter or colder. Well, the Man-made Global Warming crowd will just move to the next phony environmental calamity to push their agenda.
Well,regrettably, no more ‘global warming’ will not result in less ‘Gorebal whining’
This article cherry picks 1998 which was a record warm year. The overall trend is still up, although it is very slow.
And just what temperature time series is not cherry-picked? Earth is warm relative to when it was cooler, cool relative to when it was warmer and a darn-sight more life-friendly than when it is not in an interglacial during our current ice age. The only point of note is that it is not showing any indication of catastrophic warming from any cause.
“There is no scientific basis for saying warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data.” Dr. Judith Curry, regarding the last decade’s trend in the CRU data.
“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. Dr. Patrick Michaels, also commenting on the CRU dataset.
NCDC data show *downward* tends in summertime and wintertime temperatures in *every* region of the US since 2001. That doesn’t even include the 1998 El Nino warming.
There is no warming at present. There is some indication that there is cooling. Depending on which of the three surface temperature datasets you choose, the warming stopped 10, 13 or 15 years ago. None of this was predicted in the 51 climate models.
Sea levels are *down* 6 mm in the last year… falling at twice the rate they had been rising up to 2009. None of the models predicted this, either.
The climate change alarmists want the world to commit huge sums of money and economic upheaval ($37 trillion by one estimate) to solve a problem predicted by models which have been shown to be invalid. J. Scott Armstrong demonstrated that the IPCC climate models demonstrated a predictive validity 12x *worse* than a ‘naive’ model, i.e. a straight line. They have no predictive value. But, based on their predictions of climate catastrophe, we are supposed to spend $37 trillion fixing a problem that does not exist. Statistics show that each $13 million in costs corresponds to the loss of one statistical life (in the US: the number is likely much lower in most of the world). Nobody wants to talk about this, but if the alarmists have their way, over 3 million people will *die* as an unanticipated consequence of the cost of fixing nothing.