Mail on Sunday(Comment)
"Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits.Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming.Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt.You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent.But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body’s director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess. ..His colleagues recall that his office was ‘often surrounded by jumbled piles of papers’.Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapse.It is quite reasonable to suggest that human activity may have had some effect on climate.But in the light of the ‘Climategate’ revelations, it is time for governments, academics and their media cheerleaders to be more modest in their claims and to treat sceptics with far more courtesy.The question is not settled.There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet."
-------------------------------
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.(WUWT,12/02/10)
What does "global warming" mean.
ReplyDeleteThe Southern hemisphere has not warmed since 1979, when satellite recording of temperature began.
On that basis that global warming means elevation of temperature over the whole of the globe at the same time, there has been no global warming for 30 years.
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, and it is irrelevant whether the warming was global or not. If it was not, then neither is the current warming.
If it was global, then it was warmer than the current period. The total recent warming was, in any event, said to be .7 of a degree, so it is of little or no consequence.
All the doomsaying is about when it becomes warmer, which it has not, despite predictions by the discredited IPCC.
The important question now is whether the actions of the IPCC can be shown to be criminal, in view of the attempt to deceive, and the huge profits to be channeled to the UN, if the swindle became operational.
It would only succeed through legislation, in developed countries, induced by the scurrilous Summary for policy makers, enforcing trade in spurious carbon credits.
In Australia, we had the spectacle of the leader of the Opposition, a man with connections to Goldman Sachs, joining with our pathetic PM, to attempt to push draconian legislation through the Parliament to achieve just such a disgraceful result.