Met Office: Global warming sceptics 'have heads in sand' The UK Met Office climate change bureau has issued a stinging attack on the idea that recent falls in global temperature might mean that global warming is over or has been exaggerated. "Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand," said an unnamed Met Office spokesman in a statement released online …
1. Everyone who believes it matters quits emitting carbon dioxide.
This will save us:
2 tanker ships
8 or 9 thousand trips to the middle of the ocean
20 or 30 years of the honourable martyrsen time who would have to pilot the tanker ships to drown all the skeptics
Howevermuch evil, fozzle few-L that'd all take, anyway.
Sketicism is a worthy standpoint. Cynicism is not. I suppose you apply your attitudes to all those geographers going on about their so-called 'spherical Earth' theory in order to keep their jobs. And all those doctors with their HIV theory of AIDS.
In fact the views you (El Reg) express on the global warming issue are not indicative of skepticism, but of cynicism and simple ignorance - that means not knowing stuff. This is not an insult - it is a comment on your lack of knowledge!
Test yourself with this question. Why is the Earth the temperature it is? It is a simple question devoid of political intrigue. Don't worry about a degree or so of likely recent warming just try to understand the broad answer to the question. When you have the answer you will understand why scientists who do know stuff are concerned by the 30% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Michael de Podesta
GLOBAL WARMING AND WAR ARE LINKED:
WAR INFLATES THE OIL PRICE.
GLOBAL WARMING JUSTIFIES THE OIL PRICE.
People need to read up on global climate scares....the last one called "global weather cooling"(oh the irony!) was kicked off by a government to distract from an oil war (namely the falklands and sandwich isles war).
Bird flu anyone?
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.56 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Source NASAS -> http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
I've got an easy fix for this. Carbon it up baby! That's right, start a big ass fire, right now. All the extra heat will cause evaporation, which will make clouds... and reflect that nasty sunlight back into space!
BTW apparently Venus was our first habitable planet until we moved here. Of course all signs of our existance have been wiped out by the acid rain... but we still have Mars as a backup, don't worry apparently we know how to warm a planet. We'll just have to bring the water with us.
// In case you missed it, these comments are always going to be of 'pub' caliber,
// its the WWW FFS!
Lads,
As a reasonably regular visitor to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado let me tell you that advocating the existence of climate change and a need for an effective response hasn't done anyone's job any good. Funding has been cut, prominent scientists have had professional PR campaigns aimed at blackening their name, administrators who were in line to run the Center have been shuffled to one side. Even last month the administration cut a NCAR program which was examining the effect of climate change on society and dismissed its leading scientist (note that "society" here doesn't mean "touchy feeling" but simply "non-atmospheric" -- such as how much housing may be lost to climate change).
Your remarks about the Hadley Centre, although amusing, just adds to the amount of unfair criticism laid upon scientists in the field.
Cheers, Glen
<rant>
This whole article and thread is nothing more than a steaming pile of **** based on the premise that no global warming == no Hadley Centre which is just wrong. The Hadley Centre are there to research climate change regardless of whether it is man made or the direction it's going in. The UK government (and other governments) would want to know equally if there was going to be no change expected or a cooling over the next few decades. Hence to say they are self serving or have vested interests is wrong. There would be no rash of redundancies if AGW were proved wrong. Likewise, to say the scientists are in it for the money is wrong given that after 7 - 8 years of undergraduate and postgraduate education and being required to be highly numerate and computer literate they are lucky to start on £24k a year. The majority are there because they enjoy science even though they could enjoy a far better salary elsewhere and few of them have any green agenda. The problem with the climate change debate lies with the green lobby (greenpeace, friends of the earth etc) and the scaremongering news editors out to make a quick headline. Add to the mix the emissions trading schemes (dreamed up by big business as another way to make money based on fear rather than by the scientists) and the whole policy debate is a mess.
</rant>
In denying climate change. 'cos he'd have to pay for it when it's only some foreign darkie kids in fifty years that will have to pay for his inaction.
If you're going to mete out scorn for having a vested interest, look at your own vested interest in your result first.
NOTE: I don't get paid for climate work. I'm IT support.
Before you attempt to outwit tens of thousands of professional scientist with a ten line ignorant rant, You might like to take a moment to understand what is being proposed.
1, Climate Change is about global averages including ocean temp, not isolated local air temperatures.
2, Here in the UK our weather is dictated by the gulfstream which is slowed by fresh melt water from Greenland. (recent satellite images show unprecedented melt)
3, The sun is currently at it's least active phase of a 12 year cycle, effectively reducing global heat absorption.
4, It's not all down to economics and how this will affect humans, Historically global temperatures have been higher than we have now, but it took thousands of years to get to that point, giving nature time to adapt and evolve. with species migrating.
Global warming on the scale linked to CO levels above 340ppm suggest dire consequences.
"Billions of tons of 'stuff' buried under the ground for millions of years,
Take just 100 years to dig most of it up and burn it into the air...etc..."
Take a volcano -- Billions of tons of stuff buried in the ground for billions of years (since the earth began?), explodes and in a matter of hours, maybe days, and releases more CO2 into the air than man ever could.
If there is global warming do you really think it's man-made? or that we can control it?
No doubt that there are changes in the climate over the last [insert preferred timescale]. it just makes me laugh that humankind are so arrogant that they believe they can halt these changes. Big complex place Earth. It's managed to regulate itself for a very long time without human assistance and will continue to do so when we are long gone. Trouble is that the Earth regulates itself over it's own time-scale and doesn't care about the piddling amount of time we are around for. Our "immense" efforts to halt/slow down climate change don't really equate to a hill of beans, and i am pretty sure hefty taxation has no effect on how warm or cold it gets.
For those of you who believe major things are happening, they are obviously not happening quickly enough, or effectively or there wouldn't be so much whining. While we continue to balance world economy and world climate nothing is going to change. I think we just have to decide which is more important, money or our living environment?
For those who are seriously worried for the future(of mankind, not the planet), I suggest you stop harping on and start planning for a different way of life. Persuading me that the world is going to end is not the answer.
In the end, if it gets so bad we can't function on this planet, shouting "i was right, i was right!" won't really do a great deal.
Thank you please
Hi Paul
when you and other scientists can explain why bankers are setting the agenda of global warming - ie the concerts and so forth
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/050707_rothschild_global.html
even try this rothschild globalwarming in google
http://www.google.com/search?q=rothschild+global+warming
When you start seeing bankers involved with such issues you should all be worried
They can't even run a bank without going bust and now we live climate to their hands
NAHHHH this is all extra money for the failing banking sector
Thanks but no thanks to all your global warming baffoon ideas
When they have no money to pay you maybe you will all suddenly change minds and go silent...
Einstein did an awful lot of his theoretical physics work whilst he was a patent clerk, but I suppose since he wasn't a scientist employed in the field, we should ignore everything he said until he was officially a scientist.
People should also really learn the difference between people who haven't been convinced that climate change is happening and people that haven't been convinced anthropogenic climate change is happening. It is possible to accept that climate change is happening, but not be convinced that it is due to a man-made effect.
I thoroughly agree with all the money now being funnelled into science, but why is it going to centres to give more weight to the climate change argument and not to, say, the theoretical energy creation ideas or the renewable energy development centres ?? Why are we pouring money into something that, even if it does prove without any doubt that man caused the problem, wont go any way to actually fixing it ??
If only 2 years out of 13 were cooler than average, then does that infer that there is no warming?
if those 2 years were compared to the average temperature globally over 50 years, then they would appear years of above average temperature.
Lets look at this more carefully. When Pinotubo volcano erupted back in the early 90's, the temperature dipped globally, as did the temperature dip when the volcano in Mexico erupted. Each large volcanic eruption skews the average, filters out more solar radiation, and hence causes a decrease in world temperature.
It was stated by MET that the recent two years data regarding global temperature were impacted by a La Nina (cooler than average temperature at the sea surface in the Pacific.
Okay, ceteris paribus, (all things remaing the same, ie., a return to El Nino conditions should result in new higher than average global temperature.
Who can deny the inference?
"NOTE: I don't get paid for climate work. I'm IT support."
It sounds like someone has a guilty conscience.
If your employer is funded to do climate work, then you're "paid for climate work". If you're spouting off on blogs all day, then you're actively doing climate campaigning. Only you're in denial about it.
"Absolutely correct - apart from the evidence obtained from pollen, varves, ice cores, oxygen isotopes, insect remains, soils, crop residues..."
Just indicate the error bar on these, please?
"In the 70's you scientists told us it was going to freeze!"
And the answer to that is
"NO, TIME Magazine and the New Yorker told you it was going to freeze".
Nope. I was there. It was the scientists and the government. There were many fewer climate scientists then, but you will find MITRE Corporation work on combatting the onset of an Ice Age.
No, no more than Steven did by proclaiming that he wasn't paid bu Big Oil in his missives against AGW.
Doggy,
No, this is a text only site. Error bars are hard to draw.
And nope, you weren't there if you thought it was "the scientists" and "the govenment" because I was there and you can even read still the original paper (note the singular) and the newspapers (note the plural).
Don't blame the cuddly volcanoes - estimates for volcanic CO2 emissions are about 150 million tonnes per annum. Man's activity is responsible for 27 billion tonnes per annum. Sulphur aerosols from volcanoes can be shown to have a cooling effect, so I am drilling through the base of my hollowed out volcano to set off a super eruption and save the world!
> It might be possible to get the impression, reading the Reg, that there's a firm editorial policy at Vulture Central denying that climate change exists,...
Yes, I get that impression because there is no other reasonable conclusion to draw for anyone who has spent any time reading about climate science.
Your editorial policy of denial, cherry-picking of data points, non-scientific and erroneous analysis of scientific data puts you squarely amongst a selection of right wing blogs and 'independent' (i.e. oil-funded) 'think tanks' in the USA.
Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. Presumably you believe that, like the Hadley Centre, they are all lying in order to protect and secure funding? The blind delusion required to believe that tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of countries are all lying in unison is laughable.
After over two of years of reading about climate change, it's become very obvious where the truth lies: with the scientists. The other side, the deniers, use the same tools that every crackpot political ideology uses - lies, distortion, Dunning Kruger effect and wilful ignorance.
El Reg should stick to 'witty' commentary on IT, because there's not a staff member with the competence or honesty to cover the science of climate change.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
