Man-caused global warming in slight retreat

Or so says Jo Nova, reporting on how the AGW cheerleaders are lowering their alarms.

Meantime, Kevin Trenberth, Apostle of AGW, is now saying that global warming is being hidden because heat is being transferred to ocean currents which, contrary to all scientific understanding of what warmer water does, is sinking out of reach of our instruments.

Once you depart from the True Faith of AGW, there is no limit to how absurd these claims of AGW fanatics appear.

Freeman Dyson, the physicist, speaks of the fudge factors in computer modelling of climate. No scientific-mathematical model of the effects of clouds, for instance, has yet been produced. Yet cloud formation is the essence of how increases in atmospheric  CO2 is supposed to generate warming. If clouds do not form as predicted, then increases of atmospheric CO2 do not have the catastrophic effects which have been predicted. The core of  the assertions about CO2’s effects on climate are arbitrary insertions into the data, multiplying weak effects into stronger ones by policy choice of the modeller.

As the lack of increase of temperatures becomes undeniable, will there be a deluge of recantations and “I never really believed it”  in the media? Or will the AGW pandemic be like the decline of belief in cholesterol as a cause of heart disease, which is dragging out for decades?

Bookmark and Share


3.50 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has performed a useful parliamentary service in allowing the issue to be aired. Although profound climate scepticism may be only a minority interest, such sceptics voice a view shared by a number of my constituents and people in the newspapers. It is a view heard on the Clapham omnibus and it is right that we hear such views and debate them in the open. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) that a cloying consensus in Parliament does no service to legislation or national debate. However much I profoundly disagree with some of the arguments, it is right that we have the chance to air them in Parliament.

Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *