"Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, Latif said the NAO was probably responsible for some of the strong warming seen around the globe in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a phase that will cool the planet."Hold on the NAO was responsible for some (I wonder how much) of the "global warming" and now will be responsible for negating all "global warming" to actually cool the planet for some years. If the NAO and AMO are that powerful might they actually be responsible for most or even all of the recent "global warming"? If so might the $billions being planned to spend (after first raising in taxation) on defeating "global warming" be pointless?
The New Scientist article also informs us that:
"Another favourite climate belief was overturned when Pope warned the conference that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008."
Global Warming? Religion or scientific fact? Any sign of the BBC covering this scientific news or do they not cover "heresy"?
11 comments:
Perhaps that's why it's called 'Climate Change' not 'Global Warming' by the experts in the field.
It was "Global Warming" until the "experts" realised temperatures weren't actually rising. Then it became "Climate Change" as that means that any change in the climate can be blamed on humanity and used as the basis to tax and control us.
Actually, in an interview on BBC Radio Four, Latif also said that according to his model, Global Warming would resume. THis possible cooling is just a trend within a trend. Latif aslo commented, anticipatig blogs like yours perhaps, that anyine who took the (as yet unpublished) results of his research to mean that human related Global warming, as a general trend, was NOT occuring did not understand climate science at all.
see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldclass/bulletin_script_wed.shtml
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html
I agree with MJN above. The article does not point to a total absence of negative climate change, it merely states how it is not simply a steady rise in temperatures. Honestly, the desperation of the climate change deniers is pathetic, nonsensical and dangerous. One last thing; Mojib Latif's article is one of many possibilities and his data has not been thoroughly tested yet by other scientists; it is a theory. only.
Maybe George Monbiot and others could stop labelling those of us, who do not believe that all the "evidence" being cited in favour of Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change is as conclusive as he believes, as "deniers" and look at the contrary evidence.
Will George Monbiot change his mind and debate climate change with Ian Pilmer or is he still scared that a proper scientist may know more than he does?
I personally greatly respect people who look at things critically, but your comment, Not a sheep, is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed which was:
a: why have the BBC NOT covered Latif's work?
The answer was that they did, directly, with an interview with Latif.
b. The second point was that the you either chose to ignore, or misunderstood, what Latif's paper was actually saying. Or did not read it.
No disrespect to anyone who seriously wants to look critically at climate science, but in order to discusss any scientific issue properly, the quality of the analysis HAS to be there, unbiased, accurate and objective.As should any reports about what real scientists are saying.
Monbiot, even though his journalism is not to my taste personally, does actually report what is being said in scientific journals accurately, and, as in his review of Pilmer's work, gets "proper scientists" to review the work, even of people he disagrees with. In your report above, an unbiased, objective, accurate report on what a scientist was saying was clearly not what you did.
Somehow I doubt that you do "greatly respect people who look at things critically" at least with respect to the religion of MMCC.
Sorry, not a sheep, but as you have no idea what my views on MMCC are, what is your basis for this statement? I have not described in any way my views on MMCC.
As a matter of fact, I dislike inaccurate science, bad reporting and partisanship - from either 'side'. The debate on climate change is important, because, as you have at times accurately pointed out, hugely influential vested interests are involved. The decisions that politicians make will affect us all.
Unfortunately, I find your (wholly innaccurate) ascription to me as a 'believer' in the "religion of MMCC" unhelpful in the debate. I was merely pointing out an inaccuracy in your report.
A debate that depends on name calling (from either side of any particular issue) is not worth having with those engaged in such nonsense because it is indicative not of an open minded consideration of the facts, but of entrenched positions.
My contradiction of your article was just that - a contradiction of one specific report you have made, and nothing more. "Looking at things critically" in this instance, would simply have required you to acknowledge the correction and you could have done this without prejudice to the views you hold. In light of your comments though, I suspect that I am not the one who's views are held as a religion.
For someone who disliked being labelled a "believer" you are very quick to assign motives to myself. Name calling on "either side" of this debate is getting us nowhere. NCF.
Once again, I'm afraid you are incorrect. I assigned no motives to you - just inaccuracy.
I did however say that the debate on climate change was an important one because there were vested interests involved. My assumption here, was that neither you, nor I, represent a vested interest or are a politician.
The implication was that your blog, (which has at times accurately pointed out where some of these vested interests lie), could be one useful forum for discussion on MMCC, from your perspective. I think you must have misread my post to assume that I was saying YOU were allied with vested interests.
Not a sheep, MJN has pwned you here. Admit it, change your article so it doesn't misrepresent Latif's comments or you are showing yourself up as a sheep
Post a Comment