Global warming slows but beware complacency

by REUTERS

Opinions Jan. 19, 2013 - 06:14AM JST ( 4 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Author Infomation

REUTERS

Order by Time Order by Popularity

4 Comments

-1

mikihouseJan. 19, 2013 - 08:28AM JST

proves only one thing: GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.
0

sangetsu03Jan. 19, 2013 - 11:00PM JST

Hmm, didn't Dr Phil Jones at the Hadley CRU admit to the BBC in an interview more than a year ago that "there has been no statistical increase in global warming in 16 years."? Looking at Nasa's GIS satellite measurements, global average temperatures have been decreasing since 2002, which gives lie to the above article. But of course the IPCC doesn't use satellite measurements, as they cannot be cherry-picked like ground measurements can. And then we can't forget Michael Mann, who had to "hide the decline" by omitting tree ring data from his reports which refuted the warming he was trying to prove. Last year Hadley said that warming wasn't occurring because of the cooling effect of large-particle air pollution generated in China, now they say it is because of decreasing solar activity. If you do the obvious math, it would appear that the higher temps before coincided with increased solar activity. Do they really think people are that stupid? Unfortunately, most people are. What would happen to the countless billions of dollars being spent by governments to combat global warming if global warming didn't exist? The Hadley CRU has never been "transparent" and has fought tooth and nail against Freedom of Informtion Act requests for it's raw data. And of course, when compelled by the courts to produce the data, it was conveniently "lost". Global warming/climate change is a multi-billion dollar industry, fat with grants for scientests who support it, and with pork for politicians who preach it.
1

cleoJan. 19, 2013 - 11:18PM JST

didn't Dr Phil Jones at the Hadley CRU admit to the BBC in an interview more than a year ago that "there has been no statistical increase in global warming in 16 years."?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

...

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
0

sangetsu03Jan. 19, 2013 - 11:30PM JST

What about the changes to chapter 8 in the IPCC report? As originally written and confirmed in the peer-review process, chapter 8 was as follows: ·

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

But this peer-reviewed exerpt was removed without consulting the peer-review group by Dr Santer to read "there is a discernable human influence".