Global Cooling
In his weekly column in the Telegraph on Sunday it seems that once again Christopher Booker is the only journalist within the mainstream media to be highlighting the increasing degree of evidence against Global Warming theory.
As he points out, when the snow cover on Snowdonia fell between 2003 and 2007 the mass media crowed that this was of course evidence of global warming caused by human activity. But now that Snowdonia has experienced abnormally deep snowfall this year, guess what, it has rarely if ever been mentioned by the same ‘concerned’ media.
NumberWatch, in a humorous ‘rebuke’ of Christopher Booker’s latest article points out that:
The snows of Snowden are a case in point. They were news while they were shrinking, but when that goes into reverse, the rules of modern polite society require the quiet turning of a blind eye.
Equally interesting is the way in which the eco-lobby and the green left have begun to noticeably shift their rhetoric and focus from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ when it turns out that the facts don’t suit their warming theory. Amusing if it were not so serious is the recent suggestion by some more ‘scientists’ that the recent large increase in Antarctica ice is down to (yes, you guessed it) global warming. Once again it is apparently man that is causing the Arctic to warm while Antarctica to cool.
Christopher Booker finishes his article with the following statement:
It won’t do for believers in warmist orthodoxy to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are ‘masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing’ - nor to fob us off with assurances that the ‘German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015’. In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.
Since the political issue of ‘Climate Change’ has now become almost entirely devoid of any scientific merit or research that may now be occurring, it is imperative that calls for us to all to immediately wreck our economies, consume less and allow government to tell us what to do to an even greater extent be refuted at ever opportunity.
Your Comments:
-
- Matthew Butler
I had quite a chuckle today when I read this article in The Daily Telegraph. Apparently, projections of temperature and snowfall by computer models were as much as five times larger than they actually were during the last century. Five times larger?! These are exactly the same type of models that are used by such august bodies as the IPCC to predict future temperature increases, and yet here we see that their preductions of PAST temperatures were complete rubbish.
Computer models fail because they cannot probably account for the immensely complex (and very poorly understood) nature of the climate. The way they cherry-pick a few variables (such as CO2 concentration and ignore millions of others makes the data meaningless. If you feed rubbish into a computer, you will get rubbish out. So the models are about as much use as a ouija board in determining future temperature.
Why do people believe this preposterous nonsense?
