The Global Warming scam is over…people and media are waking up

The mainstream media is at last starting to join powerful websites and influential scientists in acknowledging that the global warming panic is over.

This from today’s Washington Times editorial:

Those who dare assert the Earth’s temperature isn’t on a perilous rise are derided as “deniers.” For liberals, the climate debate has ended, and it is an unquestionable article of faith that mankind’s carbon-dioxide emanations have set the stage for rising oceans, devastating hurricanes and disasters on a scale never before seen. To say otherwise is unthinkable, and that has created a dilemma. It’s not actually getting warmer..

In a paper published Tuesday, no less an authority than NASA scientist James E. Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” Mr. Hansen is the intellectual godfather of the global-warming movement who advised Al Gore on his Oscar-winning climate-scare flick, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Mr. Hansen has just acknowledged more than the lack of warming. His words confirm nature, not mankind, played the decisive role in directing global temperatures over the past 10 years. 

The anecdotal evidence has certainly not been friendly to climate hysteria. Southern England is covered in snow. Los Angeles has been shivering under what is — for Angelenos — a cold snap. The National Weather Service even issued a snow warning for the Washington area on Thursday. Frigid temperatures in January aren’t unusual, but the global-warming fanatics have been trying to pass off today’s climate as worse than the droughts and heat waves seen in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s when carbon-dioxide emissions were far lower.

There has been no appreciable warming since 1998, as can be seen in the official forecast from the Met Office, the United Kingdom’s national weather service, which the agency released on Christmas Eve. Presumably, the British government’s climate scientists didn’t want anyone to notice they had lowered their forecast from previous years, with temperatures in 2020 predicted to be no warmer than they were in the late 1990s. Websites such as Climate Depot and Watts Up With That had long ago reported the same phenomenon, only to be ridiculed by the climate-change establishment. It turns out these climate realists were right all along.

To be sure, the left isn’t about to give up on global warming. Politicians need the scare to have leverage to raise taxes through “cap and trade” schemes and to regulate what types of light bulbs the public will be allowed to buy. It would be economic suicide for climate soothsayers to entirely drop their frightening prognostications because that is their source for billions of dollars in taxpayer funding. That’s why Mr. Hansen’s paper insists the “stand-still of global temperatures” is a short-term phenomenon within a long-term warming trend. The carbon-dioxide molecules that are the byproduct of economic progress are still setting the stage for the end of days. The apocalypse is just on holiday for a decade or two.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Andrei

    And this today on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8190815/World-temperature-average-rising World average temperature rising The reality disconnect still exist alas

    • Pete George

      Yes, the disconnect between most science and some who don’t want to know.

      The world’s temperature will keep rising and it’s 21st century
      activity that is boosting the thermometer, according to Nasa’s Goddard
      Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

      A visualisation released by GISS in New York, shows the average
      global temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880.

      According to the new analysis, 2012 was one of the hottest on record
      with a worldwide average of 14.6C and also the ninth-warmest year since
      1880 when record keeping began.

      Last year’s global average temperature was 14.4C.

      But the institute reports that each year after 2000 has been among
      the 14 warmest years ever and 2012 was the warmest La Nina year yet,
      which is unusual as La Nina weather patterns usually result in
      lower-than-average global temperatures.

      Stuff is a bit slow, that has been reported elsewhere a day or two ago.

      • Andrei

        You know what your blatherings reveal Pete George – your complete ignorance of science.

        Anyway in 2012 “one of the hottest” years ” on record or so we are earnestly told people in Northern Europe are freezing to death in one of the “coldest winters on record” .

        Because every fucking year in the world of ning nongs is not only “one of the hottest on record” but also seems that Northern Europe has “one of the coldest winters on record” as well when it suits the subbies who write the headlines.

        And when the Arctic ice is retreating it is because of global warming and when it is expanding global warming causes that as well.

        The only thing global warming doesn’t cause is hemorrhoids

        • Pete George

          Andrei, you may be unaware of what you’ve done, but you said:

          You know what your blatherings reveal Pete George – your complete ignorance of science.

          Followed immediately by:

          Anyway in 2012 “one of the hottest” years ” on record or so we are earnestly told people in Northern Europe are freezing to death in one of the “coldest winters on record” .

          Northern Europe is only a small part of the world, and winter is only a part of the year. It’s possible both could be correct (several organisations are suggesting 2012 to be about the 9th warmest year on record).

          It’s well known that if the world warms there is more energy and more volatility which means there is likely to be more variances in the weather. That can mean it may get colder in some places for some of the time. And hotter (at different times/places obviously).

          Where did you learn your science?

          • I learnt my Science at University doing Chemistry, where did you learn yours? However GW is not science, in fact it is anti science. They come up with the conclusion, then word backwards to see what data fits the conclusion. So much evidence of this such as Mann’s hockey stick, Briffa’s tree rings and so on. Also, recorded history is 1860 or there abouts onwards. How convenient as earth was coming out of an ice age. In medievil times it was just as hot globally as it is now. Sure CO2 is a warming gas but the models saying we are on the road to oblivion with increased emissions are all worng as wrong assumptions are being inputed into these models.

          • Pete George

            At what stage of your scientific research on climate did you reach this conclusion?

          • While going through shonkey data that was cherry picked to get the considered conclusion. Funny thing was, it was not hard to break down the data used.

          • Pete George

            If it was shonkey data how were you able to reach a scientific conclusion?

          • peterwiseman

            BC the data did not support the conclusion when put under further scrutiny

          • Richard McGrath

            PG, you appear to imply that only researchers in the field of climate science can make informed decisions on the relationship between human activity and global temperature trends, which is bollocks.

          • Pete George

            Richard – I didn’t mean to imply that, I was making a dig at Andrei who referred to me “your complete ignorance of science” and then immediately demonstrated his own ignorance.

            And then Peter B claimed that (all?) climate scientists “come up with the conclusion, then word backwards to see what data fits the conclusion”.

            I think it’s fair to ask him if he started with open minded data based research or a conclusion.

          • klem

            You know, I haven’t heard much from chemists regarding ACC. We hear lots from geologists but we never hear anything from chemists. Chemists do a lot of testing and verifying, their experiments are reproducible. That’s part of chemistry. Climate science lacks reproducibility from what I can tell, its too full of speculation and theorizing in my view.

      • Lopsy

        Bullshit George, even your high priests are pouring cold water on your alarmism. There’s nothing remarkable about current temps. By the way, your lot chose the wrong gas to pick on seeing as how it’s such a vitally important, life giving part of life on this planet. Don’t trust your data, your so called scientists “fiddle”it, your mates in the the media hide their malfeasance and your politicians are donkey deep in what I believe is verging on a criminal conspiracy.

        • Pete George

          Oh bugger, your lot have rumbled us. We thought we would be able to run this grand conspiracy undetected for another year or two, but we’ve been Lopsed.

          I know one environmental economist, sort of know a couple journalists and sort of know five politicians, is that the ‘my lot’ you were referring too?

          Have you heard the one about the magnetic field? It will be displaced by this huge asteroid just before it….

    • Orange

      You can tell some of it is rubbish when (in the herald article) they say “but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing.” So if people don’t notice it they’re obviously “not perceptive” which is poisoning the well. “Believe what I say because that proves you are perceptive and you obviously don’t want to be an idiot”. In the same article it states “0.6 degrees warmer than the mid-20th century baseline” so guess what, it doesn’t matter how perceptive you are, you simply are not going to be able to tell on a day to day basis 0.6 degrees of average difference. It’s not possible.

      • Pete George

        I agree, that’s a ridiculous comment from the Herald.

        Especially since as far as I know we aren’t experiencing many if any unusually warm extremes in New Zealand.

  • Pete George

    “For liberals, the climate debate has ended…”

    That’s a pathetically nonsense claim.

    “His words confirm nature, not mankind, played the decisive role in directing global temperatures over the past 10 years…”

    And so is that. In the short term (a decade or so) a natural cooling
    cycle has negated a longer term warming trend. When the cooling cycle
    ends (expected in the next few years) the AGW is expected to surge
    again.

    No one expects linear temperature changes. Some people do expect
    major newspapers to have a clue about what they editorialise on (WT may
    have a clue but chooses to appease their demographic).

    The vast majority of the climate science community still has major concerns. Once right wing editorial doesn’t change that.

    • Richard McGrath

      The debate has ended as far as the warmists are concerned – anyone who deviates from the mantra is a “denialist” rather than a skeptic.
      What “the vast majority” of climate scientists think does not prove anything. If one person can disprove their assertions then that one person is right and the “vast majority” are wrong.

      • Pete George

        No one can disprove all their ‘assertions’ – just as none can prove beyond doubt their claims, climate science is far too complex and over too long a period to be able to do that in a short time frame.

  • Jaffa

    If it’s over, why do 50,000 greenies a year, burn up tons of fossil fuel going to the Antarctic to watch the effects of it?

    And then burn tons more, in the stratosphere, flying around the world, to tell us not to burn fossil fuel?

    (It takes about half a ton of fossil fuel burnt to get one Greenie to L.A. from Auckland.)

    • klem

      Greenies are hypocrites.

  • SJ00

    Simple question: What percentage of the earths atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide.
    I’ll save you all the time and tell you.. 0.039445% according to wiki. Yes. 0.034%. ie less than 1/3rd of 0.1%. If it doubles, that would be 0.07%. Still less than 0.1%. And this is supposed to raise the temperature and do all sorts of other things. Please.
    I’d love to see someone build a simple model of the atmosphere in a large glass tank or something. Build the correct atmosphere in it, then push more CO2 in and prove that it will cause temperatures to rise. I appreciate the earth and its atmosphere is more complex than this, but surely the effect of double CO2 in a simple model would have a greater effect than in real life.

  • Chris

    I had a thought on Global warming , Ice Melting and Sea Levels rising. They say the earth will get warmer and melt the Ice Caps and the sea levels will rise. Then why when I fill my glass with ice and add the Coke then the Ice melts why doesn’t the glass overflow??

    • Andrei

      Archimedes principle – It is said that it came to him in the bath and he ran through the streets naked shouting “Eureka” when he had the inspiration

      • Andrei

        This is science, it makes predictions and you an test them to see if they come true.

        Everyone who has ever put Archimedes principal to the test has verified that holds.

        Unlike IPCC reports which have made predictions that haven’t come true, which the require handwaving excuses to explain away

        • kohibruce

          The volume of cold water shrinks at it warms up to 4 degrees and only once past 4 degrees does the water expand in volume with rise in temperature.

          • klem

            Arctic ice is already floating in the ocean so when it melts the oceans will not rise just like in your glass of Coke. Anarctic ice, Greenland ice and any other land glaciers are a different story. When these land based glacial ice melt they add water to the oceans, they will increase sea levels, there is no doubt about that. Of course they will require several tens of thousands of years to melt, not the 50 years stated by the rediculous IPCC. LOL!
            The oceans have been rising since the end of the last glaciation. The oceans have been rising an average of 6mm per year for the last 20,000 years. What we see today is absolutely within normal variability.

    • Pete George

      Chris – because you don’t have huge piles of ice above your coke level.

      There is much more ice above sea level than in the water.

      • Andrei

        No Pete George you scientific imbecile, Chris’s observation is a demonstration of Archimedes principal

        • Pete George

          I’m aware of that Andrei, but it doesn’t fit with his sea level conundrum. Ice cubes are in the glass but “Ice Caps” are out of the sea.

          If Archimedes had put a pile of ice blocks around rim of his bath and then they all melted into the bath what do you suppose might have happened?

          • Andrei

            If Archimedes had put a pile of ice blocks around rim of his bath and then they all melted into the bath what do you suppose might have happened?

            Archimedes would have had a cold bath and probably would have got out of it shivering

          • Dumrse

            The water level would lower as the ice melts given he difference in density. The more dense ice is replaced by the less dense water. Is that what you guys are saying ? Until the temp exceeds 4deg at which time the rising temp increases the volume of the water as it expands. Too late at night for this stuff, bust another bourbon.

    • Richard McGrath

      Bloody good point Chris!!

      • Ronnie Chow

        Think deeper , Richard . Bright people are renowned for taking mental shortcuts , often leading to mistakes .

    • John1234

      Because a floating object displaces exactly its weight in water.

      The weight of the ice pushes up the water when you put it in the glass but as it loses its melt water, it gets lighter and displaces less, exactly countered by the extra melted water.

  • Jaffa

    If Global Warming is true, (which it’s not), there’s not a bloody thing we can do about it!
    The world population is increasing at about 80,000,000 a year.

    That’s the population of the U.K. Australia, and New Zealand combined, and they all want to travel, and have cars, and refrigerators etc.

    Washing out plastic milk bottles is not going to cut it!

    • M Collings

      Agreed and at that rate the world will run out of food long before climate becomes an issue. The real issue is food security and the resource wars that are about to ensue.

      • klem

        We can only hope, right?

  • I’m big enough to say “I don’t know” and perhaps cynical enough to be open about my environmental commitments being to my local environment rather than to a planet wide response. I figure that if I’m doing that then I’m doing more than most.

    The one thing I don’t get – and if anyone else understands this then I’d be grateful for an explanation – is that the only response advocated by environmental groups to environmental problems is more socialism.

    • Patrick

      That is answered quite simply – the Green movement was hijacked by the commies years ago when everyone worked out what a lie communism was. All the commies did was “rebadge” themselves as environmentalists, do a bit of research into the main players (such as dear old Wee Wussel Norman) & you will see what they really stand for. The Green movement is just a cloak, hence the nickname Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

  • The global political urgency has abated by a huge margin since Kyoto was signed in the late 90’s. The majority of nations signed that one. That particular agreement has since lapsed. Last year 87% of nations did NOT sign Kyoto 2.

  • Pingback: Global warming takes a vacation | Rev. Felicity O'Brien speaking as a deacon()

  • James

    Yes- the same few fascist European families that own most of the World’s Big Oil companies also own the carbon Exchange Trading Bank in Switzerland (just don’t mention the Nazis). But they have always been fascists, they own the banking industry which runs this Country, and our Government (all the puppet leaders) for that matter. In fact it was Westpac that sponsored Al Gore’s latest trip here to lie to everyone. And Media Works, which is owned now by Ironbridge Capital from Australia which is in turn owned by Goldman Sachs- the largest arm of their fascist banking monopoly. Media Works was of course purchased by Goldman Sachs arm as Key came to power – and have been raving about & protecting him ever since. The real joke is when the anti-corruption ‘agencies’ around the World all hype up NZ as being one of the ‘least corrupt Countries in the World’, when we are in fact just one of their favorite communist success stories. The Illusion of Global Warming, the Illusion of Democracy, the Illusion of Free Market Economics etc……

  • Edwin Wigmore

    Professor Bob Carter appeared on ABC last year. He requested a public debate with any warmist scientist to discuss this issue. His approach was that we have been told that human production of CO2 is causing massive increases in the earths temperature. In the last 8 years, temperature has decreased by 0.05%.

    To my great surprise (not) no scientist from the apparent world wide consensus took up the challenge.

    The “consensus” notion is utter nonsense. The scientific community is and always has been massively divided on this issue. I mean, scientists cannot even agree on the atomic mass of a proton. How in the hell can they be divided on that, yet magically be totally unanimous on the something a million times more complex. It is simply a political statement that the media has latched onto.

    And it is increasingly becoming apparent that the world is stubbornly refusing to follow the enormously expensive computer models. For example the UK met office just released their figures showing no warming for 16 years and a fresh prediction of no future warming for the next five years. Damn. 21 years of no global warming.

    • klem

      Actually that’s too bad, I was hoping to catch a break in my heating bills.

52%