.jpg)
The headline Friday of an article on the BBC’s website read, “What happened to global warming?” The article by climate correspondent Paul Hudson prominently noted the lack of temperature increases in the last 10 years while noting that “the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” Yesterday, Nature railed against the story and the premise that the debate is not over.
The report from the BBC was heralded across manmade climate change skeptic websites as affirmation of their belief that their movement is growing. Indeed, the climate (pun intended) has become harder for alarmists as despite the claims that the ‘science is settled,’ skeptics are getting their long unheard cries for discussion noticed.
The BBC report was actually quite even handed in its treatment. It rightly noted that, “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures” despite the fact that the climate models global warming alarmists and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) use did not accurately predict the change – or lack thereof. This comes despite the rising CO2 in the atmosphere that the IPCC believes to be the primary cause of global warming.
Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction and Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University offered their explanation. Corbyn cited solar activity as the primary driver of the climate while Easterbrook states his believe that changes in the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) have brought on recent cooling.
Providing a counter point were IPCC scientists Dr Piers Forster and Mojib Latif. The story further discussed the UK Met Office’s explanation for the lack of warming.
The even-handedness of the article from a normally alarmist media outlet did not sit well with the journal Nature. In a posting in the site’s Great Beyond blog, editor Daniel Cressey took great offense to the BBC presented a balanced piece.
Cressey says that, “Given that they occupy a position on the scientific credibility spectrum that could charitably be characterised as ‘fringe’, it is no surprise that those who deny climate change have to take their victories where they find them.” He continues, saying that, “Without commenting on the merits of their arguments, it is clear that it is slightly disingenuous to use the views of these two men.”
In questioning the credibility of Corbyn and Easterbrook as well as other manmade climate change skeptics, Cressey opens himself to analysis of his own standing. According to his biography on the site, Cressey is a professional writer, not a researcher. He “has degrees in Chemistry, History of Science and Journalism.” The last two of course don’t lend themselves to climate science and the first is questionable and likely not an advanced degree or presumably it would say so.
Many on both sides of the debate – alarmists and skeptics alike – continue to be frustrated by the dismissive nature of discussion and unneeded ad hominem attacks such as this. Whether it is Cressey writing stories such as this or Al Gore refusing to answer a question about the accuracy of his film, the tactics do little to help either side and drown out more rational arguments.
Climate Change Examiner Facebook Page Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted.
Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
Comments
Great article. Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven theory, despite the climate change models that incorporate it. Since it's unproven, the science is hardly settled.
“The debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.” The main reason for that is that people completly ignore the existence of hundreds of thousands of Aliens motherships in our Earth's atmosphere at altittude of 20 - 50 miles. These spaceships use the free energy of gravitational, magnetic, electrical fields for their movement in the sky. But to do that they have internally to create high voltage with high frequency electromagnetic fields which one way or another interact with our ozon layer. To prove their existence I went to UFO PA MUFON conference. Jonh Ventre, director of PA MUFON, did a great job in organizing this UFO conference. People who saw AFOs (Aliens Flying Object) in the night sky under my guidance, including 5 UFO field investigators (Michael A. Melton one of them) from PA MUFON, Jonh Ventre, well-known Ufologists,etc - at UFO conference (Montgomery county community College on 10/09/2009). Details in my article "Aliens live in our Earth's atmosphere"
Dr. Josh Willis, NASA JPL, disagrees with Dr. Easterbrook's assessment of PDO.
tinyurl.com/yhtytn4
tinyurl.com/yzdazdv
tinyurl.com/3uup9v
Ever got in your car on a sunny day?
Really hot?
Imagine if instead of pavement and your car sitting in the sun, it was a field of grass.
Which would get warmer?
This proves that manmade objects absorb and retain heat, not subtract it. Silly, I know, but just a fact you can disprove by pointing a finger at Al Gore.
I know, it is a religion, and I am drunk on the coolaid...
Google and Wiki on the vocal opponents to the science of global warming, and you'll find direct links to the "think tanks" supported by oil and gas companies. They are using Propaganda 101 techniques to drag the science of global warming into a debate. There is no debate. The science research results are solid, peer reviewed, and indisputable. Ask yourself who has the motivation to turn this science into a debate. Think for yourself. Research the people here, and read the science results.
Cressey is just shooting the messenger. He and a lot of other scientists who should have known better took a shaky position for political reasons. Now that it's becoming apparent that the whole anthropogenic global warming thing has fallen apart, he really needs to man up about it instead of complaining when people point out the problems.
Nobody predicted that the Earth's gradual warming would stop so soon, so he kind of got screwed by that, but that's no reason to keep blasting people who point out that AGW is junk science. He should really come clean and admit he was wrong.
Jim says: There is no debate. The science research results are solid, peer reviewed, and indisputable.
What TOTAL BUNK! The origin of humans is not settled!
If you think you are the final word, your narcissim is as greats as Obama's.
Answer this Jim, what caused the massive ice sheet that covered most of N. America to melt and retreat just a very short 12,000 tears ago?
What gas is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect?
Man made cause of any climate change is PURE THEORY, NOT science.
There is absolutely zero evidence of it. ZERO. ALL THEORY!
Jim,
Why don't you ask yourself why the proponents of the theory of global warming would push it so hard. It is used every day to manipulate our actions. If the science is so settled and indisputable, why were the models wrong? How can the temperature go down while CO2 levels are going up? Why was the term changed from global warming to climate change?
Are there five global climate centers that generate regional temperature data?
If so, did they agree that, collectively evaluated, their data suggested global cooling would tend to prevail for the next several years?
We must have positive answers to the two foregoing questions, at least, in order to evaluate further discussion of the BBC report,cited in a csmonitor.com posting
Aaron says: Why was the term changed from global warming to climate change?
Funny how we never get answers to these questions! WE know the answer to yours. When it stopped 'warming' it changed to 'change'.
NONE of these so called environuts has bothered to answer my question about the ice sheet melting from the continent 12,000 short years ago. 12,000 years in geologic time is like 2 minutes ago. Seems that the answer may be just too "inconvenient".
FEEDING FROM THE TROUGH
“For example, the “Carbon Market Expo” to be held on the Gold Coast in
October 2009 boasts that “more than 70 businesses will exhibit at the expo”.
They include bankers, brokers, carbon asset managers, carbon investment
managers, carbon accounting firms, carbon management firms, carbon
consultants and auditors, carbon control consultants, emissions trading
forums, carbon rewards groups, tree technology consultants, green fleet
firms, carbon credit offset suppliers, carbon forest service companies,
carbon certifiers and verifiers, carbon registries, carbon market
infrastructure providers, recruitment firms, R&D advisers, PR firms,
engineering contractors, University academics, carbon market advisers and of
course all the federal, state and even local “climate smart” bureaucracies
and their well travelled staff. ”
“Despite their totally mercenary aims, this large group of city business
interests will talk reverently of their visions of Carbonia.
Just follow the dollar Jim Salinger.
I know with certainly there is no scientific consensus--over what key phrases or combination of words are most likely to attract kooks with nonsensical non sequiturs.
I've read two articles about warming in that last I don't know how many years that I thought were even handed: the BBC article referenced here and this one.
You should write a piece on the pine beetle infestation scam being used by Congress to promote the GW tax scam. :)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!