The Global Warming myth unraveling

| 21/07/2011

The global warming argument continues to unravel even as some of its more rabid proponents grasp at straws.  Phil Jones, the former head of the embattled Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom who resigned in disgrace amidst the Climategate scandal, has now made a startling admission.  Jones conceded to the BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Furthermore, he admitted that it is quite possible that the world was warmer during medieval times than it is now, a position long held by global warming skeptics and long denied by the global warming fear-mongers.

Jones’ concession on both issues points to a sea change in the entire global warming debate.  If our world was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period then it’s highly unlikely that any warming over the last century has anything to do with us.  And keep in mind that this “warming” they point to is 0.7 degrees.  What the global warming folks don’t tell you is we were coming off the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period. The Little Ice Age ran from about 1300 to 1850.  It stands to reason that we would be warming a bit after coming off a 550-year cold snap.  Many experts tell us we’d have to warm significantly more to match European temperatures during medieval times when vineyards were abundant in the London area.

Professor Jones’ backtracking is coupled with all sorts of holes that, of late, have been blown in the much-ballyhooed 2007 UN IPCC report.  That report is riddled with outlandish claims that have now been corrected and dubious sources for important parts of the research.  One claim of temperature and ice change came from casual observations taken from a hiking magazine.  Their claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 had to be revised when it was discovered someone had transposed the numbers.  It was supposed to be 2350.

Okay, so they only missed it by 300 years.  But who can realistically claim that they have any idea what the climate will be doing in 300 years?

Other mistakes in the report include a claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in rainfall.  Instead of coming from a peer-reviewed paper, that claim came from the radical World Wildlife Fund.

We now know that temperature data the IPCC has relied on since its inception is suspect given the manner in which this data has been collected.  A staple of previous IPCC reports, the Michael Mann hockey stick graph, which showed little temperature change over a thousand years then a sudden spike, like the blade of a hockey stick, in the last 50 years, has been widely discredited.  The IPCC quietly dropped the hockey stick data in its last report.

Also, the claim of a consensus by Al Gore and others is laughable.  The IPCC used 150 scientists to compile the report, notthe thousands Gore has claimed.  Other scientists involved simply reviewed the material and a good number of them disagreed with the findings.  Hardly unanimous, as Gore has claimed.

The most laughable is the claim that the recent snowstorms in the Northeast corridor were caused by global warming.  They actually said that.  It would seem if that’s the case then the planet has already solved the global warming problem.

The IPCC, along with Al Gore, won a Nobel Peace Prize for their work.  Of course, global warming has nothing to do with peace but that’s okay.

Apparently, the IPCC and Al Gore have nothing to do with real science

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. O'Really says:

    “Phil Jones, the former head of the embattled Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom who resigned in disgrace amidst the Climategate scandal….”

     

    This is a pretty unambiguous statement. 

     

    Strange then that Wikipedia should have the following entry for Jones: ” He temporarily stepped aside from this position in November 2009 following a controversy over e-mails which were taken and published by person(s) unknown. The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry concluded that there was no case against Jones for him to answer, and said he should be reinstated in his post. He was reinstated in July 2010 with the newly-created role of Director of Research, after a further review led by Sir Muir Russell found no fault with the “rigour and honesty as scientists” of Jones and his colleagues…”

     

    Not trusting Wikipedia completely I had a quick look at the Climate Research Unit’s own website. Sure enough, Jones is shown as Director. 

     

    If the author can fit so much error and deliberate misstatement into what should be a none contentious issue, I leave it to your imagination as to just how badly mangled the science component of this viewpoint is.

  2. LoneRanger2011 says:

    The author of the article (Eric van Buijten) is either ignorant or a liar. Phil Jones never "resigned in disgrace". He is still at CRU in the UK. The 'Little Ice Age' lasted from 1550 to 1850, and not for 550 years. And the IPCC used a LOT more than 150 scientists. The first report alone (WG1 – The Physical Science Basis) had 620 authors and editors from 40 countries. The names of these scientists (and their affiliation) are available on the net. Eric van Buijten really needs to educate himself about thetopic being discussed.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Fred, I totally agree. Who is this person? What is his expertise in climate science? Is he a scientist at all? Someone who argues snowstorms disprove the fact that global warming is happening may not be fully versed in how it actually works and the impacts it has on climate – which is not the same as weather.

    The below article is a good intro into what's behind the climate change "debate".

    It notes:

    "It’s not news that the fossil fuel industry has funded an ongoing campaign of doubt and misinformation about the effects of its products and about the dangers of climate change – people and organizations from science historian Naomi Oreskes (author of Merchants of Doubt) to Greenpeace have been exposing these efforts for years. From hiring trolls and front groups to post comments on websites, submit letters to editors, and write opinion columns to sponsoring “scientific” research and holding conferences, it’s all been well documented. (The same tactics have also been used by the tobacco industry.)"

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/Suzuki/2011/07/13/18414011.html

  4. Nick_Cayman says:

    Scientific American – Extreme Weather and Ckimate Change.

    See the  following URL;  www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=extreme-weather-and-climate-change

    Of course, it may be a global conspiracy. However, what the objective of this conspiracy may be I and many others are still trying to find out.

    Nick Robson Director-General The Cayman Institute

  5. Anonymous says:

    Good article, but that' nothing new. This whole thing is purely a ploy by our progressive friends and the UN to justify massive redistribution of wealth on a global basis, and also impose their twisted radicial lifestyles on freedom loving people. Al Gore is the biggest charlatan and scammer in the whole bunch, standing to make millions and millions through his company's involvement in the "carbon trading" exchange.. . Luckily more and more peole are seeing through this ridiculous ploy.

  6. Fred Burton says:

    Who is "Eric van Buijten" and what does this person actually know about this? Beware unreferenced opinion to do with global warming unless you know its source and the reason it is being put forward.

    Read the article van Buijten is referring to, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm for yourself and draw your own conclusions, then ask yourself why Buijten chose to report the part he did, in the way he did?

    And note that article was published last February. I recall since then additional data has brought the modern waming trend data to the point it is actually statisticaly significant. Also reported by the BBC : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    It's articles like van Buijten's that seek to perpetuate a debate when actually, there is no real "is it happening" debate any more. Just manufactured debate. Which is getting very tired and wearisome.