Bonus Morning Read: Global Warming Stopped 16 Yrs Ago

From the UK’s Daily Mail:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

What does this have to do with Georgia? I’m glad you asked.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.(emphasis added)

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

The Daily Mail falls for the old “Georgia Tech University” stuff but hey, I’m glad my alma mater is helping diffuse the “global warming is going to kill us all” hysteria.


  1. Max Power says:

    You know here’s something I still don’t get, why the GOP hostility to the idea man-made GW? Is it just because it smacks of environmentalism, and environmentalism is bad?

    Think about it: CO2 in an atmosphere causes that atmosphere to retain heat. Don’t believe me? It’s a fact you can prove it in your garage if you want to. Back during the dino days there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was warmer, then there was a mass extinction and a lot of that CO2 got locked up in ground and eventually became fossil fuels. Now we’re burning those fossil fuels and releasing the CO2 that’s been locked up for millions of years. And yet the GOP still wants to act burning coal doesn’t impact the climate.

    I just don’t get it, please explain.

    • Far too much of the discussion about global warming is based on faulty science (as demonstrated by the article above) and is driven by people that assume capitalism and the freedom to live one’s life as one pleases is to blame. I’m tired of being lectured by multi-millionaire leftists about how much toilet paper I use and whether or not I mow my grass and cook hamburgers on my backyard grill. I’m tired of being told I’m a neanderthal because I want to see important policy decision dealing with the production of energy based on accurate, non-politicized science.

      • Max Power says:

        So shorter Buzz “People I don’t like support it, so I oppose it.” Is it any wonder this state and this country are in so much trouble.

      • Scott65 says:

        Buzz…the overwhelming majority of credible scientists say climate change is happening. You can always find someone who will back up your point of view if you try hard enough. I’ve not had anyone mention that I need to give up toilet paper, btw. The facts and statistics dont lie…the problem is we dont know a lot about what the consequences of climate change will be. What is known is that we are close to a tipping point…and when we reach it it will be too late to do anything about it. Nobody I know of is mandating individuals do anything different, but aside from the clean air and water argument, big polluters need to be held accountable to reduce what they put into the air we breathe. This isn’t left right…and carrying the mantra of personal freedom doesnt fly when it takes away someone else’s. I have lived with asthma for over 20 years…so if you want to fire up that grill on a code red smog day…guess what…you are impeding on my right to breathe. We dont live in a society where everyone has the right to do as they please…not even you

        • Doug Deal says:

          This is nonsense. First of all, you apparently define credible as agreeing with what you want to believe.

          Second, “climate change” is a weasel word expression. The climate constantly changes as evidenced by glacial and inter-glacial periods that the Earth has experienced in its 6,000 year existence. (The age comment was a joke, obviously.)

          Saying the climate is changing is like saying tomorrow will be another day. True on its face, but it is not very helpful as far as predictions go. The models are extremely flawed, yet these scientists use them to run “experiments” to prove and make predictions, none of which have ever materialized.

          • Stefan says:

            You will always be able to find fault with a study, but overall the data are credible and most people would not argue that humans choices have a net effect on climate. Now, I don’t know about you, but I love Georgia. However, what I do not particularly like is sitting in traffic in the hot sun in August in Georgia. I would really not like it if the temperature on average was 2-3 degrees higher. We can agree on this, yes?

      • benevolus says:

        I’m tired of arguing about it too. I don’t have any kids so I don’t even care anymore if the sea level rises or everybody has to wear hats outside or insurance companies stop covering skin cancer. I’m sure someone will figure out a way to make money from it and that’s the important thing.

        P.S. Don’t even get me started on the list of things I’m tired of millionaire righties telling me how I should live my life.

  2. Scott65 says:

    Just to add on to Max Power’s comment…nature over the last million years has generally cycled between 180-280 parts per million co2 in the atmosphere with 180 being ice age events and 280 during warmer events (dinosaurs). We now have 390 parts per million co2. Not only burning fossil fuels releases trapped co2. Melting of the Siberian permafrost is also releasing massive amounts of co2 trapped in the peat that has been frozen as well as massive amounts of methane…which is worse than co2…now, someone explain that

        • Harry says:

          And why hasn’t it been updated? It appears the environmental true believers are suppressing studies on solar radiation cycles. I haven’t been able to find any comprehensive recent data.

          • Scott65 says:

            Harry, I love ya man, but I dont have time to read that study right now…trying eat lunch while I’m typing and have to get back to work…I just saw the 2003 date. I just know that while some dont thing climate change is man made…almost none of them think its not happening for whatever reason

              • Noway says:

                Yes, it’s called a solar cycle. Just as we have cycles that contribute to ice ages. The man-made stuff ain’t causing significant global warming, oh, excuse me, climate change. The socialists changed the name a few years back when the man made stuff was proved insignificant. And it is just another way the leeches are trying to get into to the pockets of the producers. The UN parasites are doing it too, to establish a global tax to help the have-not countries. Oh and one final FACT, it’s getting warmer on Mars, too, better ban all the cars up there….wait….there ain’t none! OOOopppps! Case closed.

  3. saltycracker says:

    The baseline contributor to bad air is the incredible increase in worldwide population and those people wanting to improve their “standard of living” via worldwide industrialization and deforestation. The problem is to abate these massive changes requires global agreements to fix the big issues.

    There is a point that the U.S. has exhausted enough of its capital, should recognize that further efforts have minimal imact (terrible cost/value) and should wait for the rest of the world to get in line. I’d imagine that line varies by industry.
    IMO an industry over crunched is automotive emissions.

    • Scott65 says:

      So, what do we do while waiting for the rest of the world? Just wait till its too late? I dont think there is anyone who wants to say “I told you so”. Oh, and climate change can produce some strange weather, and its not necessarily warmth. GW could cause overly harsh winters in Europe for example because the Gulf Stream would slow or shut down if too much fresh water from melting glaciers stops water from sinking (fresh water is less dense than salt water) thus interrupting the conveyor belt that is the Gulf Stream. This is science, and it has happened before in times of high co2 concentrations (volcanic mainly)

      • saltycracker says:

        There are many things the U.S. & consumer can do but in many cases it is like throwing 1o grains of sand on a eroding beach.

        I do believe we should continue our research (key word) to support alternative and clean energy. That does not involve ownership nor does it involve individual tax subsidies like those for replacing a needed appliance or car.

        What would you do to stop Indonesian, Brazil and others from deforestation or China to build cleaner coal plants or and multi-million populated third world cities to stop allowing high emission vehicles ?

        What I would not do is throw foreign aid at the problem.

        • saltycracker says:

          P.S. Maybe we need to require developers to replace trees & green space ? (seriously)Example of enough: Emission costs @ vehicle are enough and we want more (wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t 20-25% of cost or more):
          Couldn’t find info on cars but for just big rig diesels it is $21K EACH & we want to get tougher:

          “As reported by on 9 March 2012, the costs involved in meeting the 2004 and 2010 US Environmental Protection Agency emission standards for heavy trucks far exceeded original estimates. The EPA had projected an average on-cost per vehicle, for class 8 (heavy duty) diesel-engined trucks, of US$5,000. But the report just published by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) puts the increase at typically US$21,000.”

  4. Ed says:

    Not weighing in one way or the other but… The Daily Mail has a history of… at best sensationalism and has had numerous reports on global warming thoroughly debunked or shown to be really awful journalism.

    So what I’m saying is that while even NASA will say that the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record*, I’ll go along and say that maybe GW isn’t happening. Just don’t go touting a Daily Mail report for your argument.

    * (Side note, let’s face it arguing with the scientific rigor of NASA seems even more foolhardy than trying to argue you’re more Catholic than the Pope).

  5. Scott65 says:

    FYI…there are predicting a cold wet winter for the SE US…maybe we will have snow this winter…that would be nice…especially since I locked in at $.49/therm with my gas provider yesterday for 12 months

    • saltycracker says:

      I’ve locked in for years and bought natural gas funds – wrong so far – my luck is if I sell my gas investments the prices will skyrocket !

  6. David C says:

    Citing the Daily Mail in the UK is like citing the National Enquirer over here. It’s a tabloid with highly questionable reporting value, unless you’re looking for pictures of naked celebrities.

    • Scott65 says:

      …or Royals…thank God the new crop of royals are much better looking then say…Prince Charles…God bless Princess Diana…she certainly improved their gene pool

      • Calypso says:

        I guess enough of Diana’s good looks over-rode Prince Charles’ features which produced Prince William’s better than the Royal average looks to snag a babe like Kate Middleton.

        I hope Diana and Kate’s freshening of the gene pool will last several generations.

  7. Artful Dodger says:

    So tens of thousands of scientists independently working in various laboratories, facilities, etc. are all wrong, but suddenly we trust one story in the Daily Mail?

    This is confirmation bias. You want this article to be true, so this is the one you trust.

      • Scott65 says:

        Harry, why is it that you feel the need to insert “leftist”, “socialist”, and the like when you are making an argument…shouldn’t your argument stand without the extra verbiage? It really lessens what might be a valid point. As it is, our changing climate, global warming, climate change…man made or not…is pretty nonpartisan…Its more a plutocrat (and anyone they can pay to help maintain their profits and convince people the Emperor’s clothes are fabulous ) vs everyone else. They have been quite good at painting it as a L/R issue but its not.
        Then again if you believe (as fact not faith) the world is 9000 years old (not saying you do Harry), men walked with dinosaurs, and the world was created in 6 days…Adam and Eve…need I go on…then I guess you would negate anything supporting man made climate change because you have no belief in science in general

        • Harry says:

          Count it in God-years or human-years, but the earth’s climate has gone through uncounted major and mini ice ages and global warming cycles. If envirowackos and their enablers in the media and academia want to convince the rest of us that humans have more than 1% effect on climate cycles, they better move away from the junk science and work on a model that really works and stands up to critique by skeptics.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Laboratories for climate change? They do not conduct experiments, as they merely run simulations on computers and have never successfully modeled climate.

      • benevolus says:

        They also collect and analyze ice cores, collect and analyze ocean temperature and acidity data, measure glacial ice flows over time, and a whole bunch of other things. There is real data going into their analyses.

  8. TheEiger says:

    I don’t see the downside to the whole global warming discussion. Crazy liberals have been promising me that Florida will be under water for years. I cannot wait to drive to Valdosta to get to the beach instead of down into the hated Gator country.

    • saltycracker says:


      Who’s crazy ? If that happened Floridians would get so much in government catastrophe funds you’d be taxed out of your pants. I’m with you if Gainesville went into a sinkhole (Mother Nature tried once – Paynes Prairie State Park). ….

  9. sunkawakan says:

    Seriously, though. Why is it so implausible that such a thing as man-made global warming exists? If this is just a religious objection, come out and say so. This sure seems to parrot the church’s insistence on the geocentric model. Don’t just glom on to one independent statement that refutes what hundreds of other scientists agree on.

  10. saltycracker says:

    In lieu of debating about warming it certainly seems to take our eye off polution.
    It would defy common sense if adding a billion plus people to the planet and industrializing a 100 more countries wouldn’t have an impact.

    For starters, I’d like to go to Fish and Game and not have sort out the edible fish advisories. It would be nice if swimming in a Georgia lake, pond, river or creek did not involve unusual risk.

Comments are closed.