Today's most viewed
| DALES FOLK |  | | | PICK OF THE PAST | | | READERS' LETTERS | | | COUNTRYFILE | | | | CARTOONS | | |
|
|
|
A cooler look at global warming
Fifteen years ago, I was being excoriated by some readers for reporting the forecasts of many leading scientists that the world was facing a new Ice Age.
Although I was only the messenger, I was accused of being a scaremonger.
Well, here I go again, breaking another taboo, but this time I am un-scaremongering, if I can use such an ugly verb.
Because I have, for the past ten years, expressed my doubts about the causes of climate change and, in particular, about global warming.
I have never doubted that our climate is changing: winter has almost gone here in Britain and spring seems to be on its last legs.
Ten years ago, I was reporting droughts and some of the peak bogs in the Dales were on fire and burning for weeks on end. Now, they are saturated with almost constant rain.
I have always thought that these were natural cycles, rather than man-made potential disasters. In Roman times, they grew grapes in York.
When the first Elizabeth was on the throne, they roasted oxen on the frozen River Thames.
This, of cause, is anathema to thousands of scientists whose research grants, and therefore jobs, depend on the global warming scare.
Worse, hundreds of politicians have jumped on the same bandwagon - and have pioneered a huge jump in so-called "green taxes."
Next year, virtually all road fund taxes for anything other than a mini-size car will double, even for standard family runabouts like the Ford Mondeo.
It is also suggested that more than 60 per cent of English council tax payers will have to pay more to have their bins emptied to aid "green" recycling targets.
But now certain facts which the politico/science lobby have desperately been trying to keep secret have emerged.
There has been no global warming at all since 1997 - in fact, certain areas of the globe have got slightly cooler in that time - and any warming is not likely to resume again for another ten years.
Now, I have absolutely no idea how scientists can make such predictions, but I do know that they have been dramatically wrong in the past: when the steam train was invented in Victorian times, they were saying the human body would die moving at more than 40 mph.
And, a month ago, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, published a book saying that, by wasting hundreds of billions on "green" programmes like biofuel production, we could send the world's economy into a power dive which would mean we could not longer feed people in the Third World. He has been excoriated too.
Could we please have some research into non-man-made climate change?
10:38am Friday 9th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: climategirl, UK on 5:37pm Fri 9 May 08
If John Sheard wants to be taken seriously as an antithesis to the climate change consensus, then he had better try substantially harder than this comically awful piece.
Firstly, could we have references for the claim that there has been no climate change since 1997, contrary to this evidence:
http://www.metoffice
.gov.uk/corporate/pr
essoffice/myths/2.ht
ml
Secondly, does he really think there is 'no' research happening into naturall occuring climate variation, when that is the sole research activity of countless scientists world wide. Again, evidence of this would be nice.
Thirdly, the argument that 'scientists have been wrong in the past, so they may be wrong now' is desperate, obviously.
If you have 'no idea' how scientists can make 'such' predictions, maybe you should ask them, or better, read their publications, they will be pleased to let you know.
If John Sheard wants to be taken seriously as an antithesis to the climate change consensus, then he had better try substantially harder than this comically awful piece.
Firstly, could we have references for the claim that there has been no climate change since 1997, contrary to this evidence:
http://www.metoffice
.gov.uk/corporate/pr
essoffice/myths/2.ht
ml
Secondly, does he really think there is 'no' research happening into naturall occuring climate variation, when that is the sole research activity of countless scientists world wide. Again, evidence of this would be nice.
Thirdly, the argument that 'scientists have been wrong in the past, so they may be wrong now' is desperate, obviously.
If you have 'no idea' how scientists can make 'such' predictions, maybe you should ask them, or better, read their publications, they will be pleased to let you know.
Posted by: ecologist, Cowling on 3:09pm Sun 11 May 08
I fully agree with the comment above by Climate girl. Mr Sheard is clutching at straws to make a very shaky point. If he really believes the global warming tend has stopped, he should be far more rigorous in understanding his belief. What the report he alludes to actually said was that global warming trends might have been kept in check by a natural cooling cycle of the earths climate since 1998. If it had not been for this effect then temperatures would have been even higher. However the reports conclusion is completely dependent on choosing the year 1998 as a point of reference. Choose another year and the prediction is simply not there.OK, so he is sceptical of scientists, but the evidence to prove the existence of global warming is so strong , it can't simply be dismissed on the false interpretation of a single report.
We all know the concept of sticking your head in the sand and we all know the story of the Emperor's new clothes; neither approach will change the truth though! truth.
"It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That's a classic cherry pick. And it makes no scientific or statistical sense whatsoever.
I fully agree with the comment above by Climate girl. Mr Sheard is clutching at straws to make a very shaky point. If he really believes the global warming tend has stopped, he should be far more rigorous in understanding his belief. What the report he alludes to actually said was that global warming trends might have been kept in check by a natural cooling cycle of the earths climate since 1998. If it had not been for this effect then temperatures would have been even higher. However the reports conclusion is completely dependent on choosing the year 1998 as a point of reference. Choose another year and the prediction is simply not there.OK, so he is sceptical of scientists, but the evidence to prove the existence of global warming is so strong , it can't simply be dismissed on the false interpretation of a single report.
We all know the concept of sticking your head in the sand and we all know the story of the Emperor's new clothes; neither approach will change the truth though! truth.
"It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That's a classic cherry pick. And it makes no scientific or statistical sense whatsoever.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
