Monday, October 12, 2009

“What happened to global warming?”

“What happened to global warming?” asks … guess who … the BBC.

 What happened to global warming?.
    “This headline may come as a bit of a surprise [says the BBC’s climate correspondent Paul Hudson], 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.

Bet you never thought you’d hear any of those those words from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. [Hat tip Climate Debate Daily]  Is this the start of a media tipping point?

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

I hope this is the start of the 'tide turning' and the media starting to realise what a confidence trick they swallowed.

10/12/2009 09:51:00 am  
Blogger Rimu said...

Rubbish. Read this

10/12/2009 10:03:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

BBS: "He (Piers Corbin) is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month."
Is it his conference?
WeatherAction Special Conference Oct 28th London
Crank it up guys!

10/12/2009 10:28:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

@Monsieur: Sure, Corbyn is a certified nut. But the BBC's chief climate reporter is now reporting this nut instead of just the nuts they normally report.

And they're reporting the other news that they haven't before: the news that Rimu rubbishes.

10/12/2009 10:33:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

@Rimu: I see you're still using your risibly out-dated Green Party talking points.

Three years on from Coby Beck's last-ditch stand, it's now apparent that the trend identified by Professor Bob Carter is the one you need to take seriously. Just like the BBC's reporter is.

10/12/2009 10:36:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Peter
I imagine it fits the BBCs policy of fair and balanced reporting. Like the Evolution/Creationist debate, give both sides of the story. (Cranks vs Scientists).

10/12/2009 10:40:00 am  
Blogger Lucy said...

Somebody please send this to Nick Smith and John Key.

10/12/2009 10:49:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

@Monsieur:
Well, it has taken the BBC thirty years to practice such "fair and balanced reporting" . . .

10/12/2009 10:54:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Peter
I'm glad you're a fan.

10/12/2009 11:01:00 am  
Blogger Lyndon said...

So, supposing there were a gradual trend in the climate...

Given that there are ocean cycles and all that other stuff...

Over what period would you expect to see that trend?

10/13/2009 11:17:00 am  
Anonymous Dolf said...

"Given that there are ocean cycles and all that other stuff...
Over what period would you expect to see that trend?"


There is no such thing as a single trend, starting with the big bang and ending with the second coming.

All we have is a multitude of cycles.
These cycles could range from days to thousands of years long, therefore there is no way to prove that we are not seeing some natural 100 year cycle.

I'm no scientist but i think that if you wanted to prove a multi-century cycle, 50 years worth of satelite pictures are just not going to cut it.

Luckily for us, the "climate scientists" has a handy stand in for proof: belief. I mean falsifiability is so 20th century.

10/14/2009 01:34:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home