Yes; the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics. The beginning was the Holocene Optimum; or it was the Little Ice Age; or it was Ice Ball Earth. Or it was the simple, undeniable record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, often far exceeding that of today. History, and paleoclimatology, is going to repeat. The burden of proof should be on those wishing to extract the wealth; the deniers of history.
Did someone say “it’s over?”
The Chill Is On
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Global warming? Don’t worry about it. It’s over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from — greenhouse gases.
Read More: Global Warming
The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland — except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.
Of course the IPCC spins the news.
“You should look at trends over a pretty long period,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, “and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.”
His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean’s La Nina current, “part of what we call ‘variability.’ ”
If that’s the case, then why can’t the Pacific’s El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a “variability” and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda?
Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC’s models.
This is not some gas-guzzler’s fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded “the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion” there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures.
That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time.
It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes “garbage in” and spits “gospel out.”
The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.