The argument is essentially over…the BBC caved, many other media outlets are facing reality, even the railroad engineer at the IPCC has given up.
Global Warming hasn’t happened for 17-18 years. Even the warming that did occur was negligible.
Now one of the last bastions of warmist propaganda outfits, the NY times has finally thrown in the towel. But they can’t quite get there to admitting it has stopped, referring instead to a “slowdown”.
As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes toÂ global warming.
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.
But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.Â
They try a valiant last ditch attempt at the defence of global warming, by attacking the messenger, when even NASA has concluded that they got it wrong, there isn’t any warming and in fact CO2 is a coolant not the other way round.
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that âglobal warming stopped 15 years agoâ or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strongÂ El NiĂ±oÂ weather pattern.
Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer.
But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.
Hahaha, they are too funny..what about carbon salesmen wanting us to invest in carbon bonds?, carbon credits? and futures?…scam artists. What about all their “green schemes”…ask investors in electric car companies how that is going for them.
What to make of it all?
We certainly cannot conclude, as some people want to, that carbon dioxide is not actually a greenhouse gas. More than a century of research thoroughly disproves that claim.
Uhmmm…some of those people are NASA you munters.
I can;t wait for the day when all these liars and charlatans are lined up and made to apologise tot eh world, then indicted for fraud.