Even the BBC is now asking: What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.   But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.   And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.   So what on Earth is going on?   Wow. As I said a few days ago, once global warming hysteria starts to lose the BBC, (still in so many ways completely devoted to the totally uncritical promotion of environmental scaremongering), you know that something big is going on and that some people have realised that they cannot ignore it any longer.   And I'd have to say that Hudson's article, unusually for the BBC on such things, is pretty fair and balanced.   He actually gives both sides of the story.   More importantly I feel is the long overdue honesty in acknowledging that real word observation do not support the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.   The climate has NOT warmed as the computer models said it would. (Which is not to say it hasn't warmed or that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.)   And despite the typical dishonesty of the Greens, Greenpeace, the WWF and company, (who make vast amounts of money from selling fear about the environment), who have simply tried to deny that the warming of the Earth had slowed down and effectively stopped over the last decade or so, the fact remains that our planet has not behaved as they expected.   One of the interesting things that has been coming to light over the last few years has been the fact that the world's oceans have been losing their store of heat. "In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down"   That's right. Contrary to all expectations, they are cooling. This has enormous ramifications for climate change and yet again was not predicted by the computer models which, at the end of the day, are the only "evidence" to support the notion of dangerous climate change.   STOP PRESS! Guess what? Remember when you were told that the debate was over and the science was settled?   They lied.   Hudson here admits it. So what can we expect in the next few years?   Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.   It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).   Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.   One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.   Let's just repeat that shall we? "It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over."   The real debate is in fact only just starting, and yet we have Kevin Rudd rushing to put in place vastly complicated and expensive taxation schemes, (and that is all that an emissions trading scheme is at heart), based upon dodgy and unproven science that is, if not collapsing before our eyes, under serious re-examination and which is looking less certain by the day.   And we are going to destroy tens of thousands of real world jobs, force up the cost of power (and thus of everything) and make Australia less competitive internationally for this?   This is supposed to make sense?   The lunatics are clearly in charge of the asylum!   Check out this graph from the website of the federal government's Department of Climate Change http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html   We even have government departments peddling false and discredited information as they try to hype and exaggerate the dangers of climate change.   The graph is the now totally discredited Hockey Stick. You can read about how it was exposed as scientific fraud here.   And did you know that one of the key supporting studies behind the defence of the Hockey Stick involved just ten Siberian trees, while ignoring all the rest that didn't give the "right" answer, and then basing the results effectively on just one of the ten trees?   No? Read about the whole sorry sage here - The Yamal Implosion.   I'm sure the Department of Climate Change isn't deliberately lying here and is staffed with well meaning people, but they clearly have little idea about the actual science involved and just as clearly are not keeping up to date with our changing understanding of climate change.   Many thanks to Ian for the hat tip about the BBC story.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous