Upside-Down Thermometer

Global warming, was it?

The BBC reports:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C. [emphasis added]

Stop and re-read these paragraphs, and let the full impact sink in.  Global temperatures have not risen since 1998... yet "climate experts" insist we are still in a long-term warming trend.  Actually, they say we are clearly in a long-term warming trend, no less.  This despite the fact that for ten whole years, there has been no warming.

Despite the absence of warming - that is, despite it not, in fact, getting warmer - the last decade, they say, was the warmest on record.

Now, not being a professional climatologist, perhaps I am not able to fully appreciate the profundity here, but can anyone explain how it could be the warmest on record, without in fact warming?  Are they perchance consulting Bill Clinton's dictionary to find the meanings of the words?

A ten-year trend is not a long-enough term for it to have any meaning.  Full and conclusive proof of global warming can be had by examining the entire hundred years since the beginning of the 20th Century, over which time, as the article says, the earth has gotten warmer by the heart-palpitating total of three-fourths of a degree.  Three whole fourths!

Masters of the art of understatement, the BBC drily points out that this news is "prompting some to question climate change theory."  Imagine that!  Some people have the temerity to ask whether the fact that the earth is not getting warmer might be proof that the earth is, in fact, not warming.

The trouble with global warming is that it's commonly misunderstood as a scientific issue.  It's not.  As we've reported extensively before, there is not the slightest shred of unimpeachable proof that there is any warming, much less that it is the fault of humans, nor yet that it would hurt anything if it were true.

But we continue to be told that every weather event which takes place - a storm here, a dry spell there, extra-cold winters in the entire Northern Hemisphere - is one more proof that "the debate is over."

Oh, the debate is over, all right - but on the other side.  Global warming is a lie, nothing more, and nothing less.

In an odd way, it almost seems like the environmentalists are beginning to realize this.  More and more, what was previously called "global warming" is now being called "climate change."  Talk about covering your bases - no matter what happens, climates by definition change, so they can't be wrong!

Greenpeace has finally started to change their tune on the issue of ethanol and other biofuels, which do more harm to the environment than the normal Saudi stuff; their founder has changed his mind concerning the benefits of nuclear power.  It'll be quite the event when Greenpeace stops protesting global warming and starts protesting global cooling again, won't it?

Well, maybe not.

In George Orwell's famous book 1984, the nation of Oceania has been at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia.  During a political event, the speaker suddenly changes in mid-speech to referring the other way around, allied with Eurasia against Eastasia instead.  Rather than express shock at the sudden change, the only reaction of the audience is to note in horror that the posters are all wrong, and to tear them down.  Problem solved!  "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Kermit Frosch is a guest writer for  Read other articles by Kermit Frosch or other articles on Environment.
Reader Comments
I guess I should've known when I read that article that it wouldn't be long until I saw it again on Scragged.

I'm extremely skeptical of the whole global warming issue, but this article is way off base, and continues the Scragged tradition of purposely misinterpreting news articles in order to make a story.

"This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998" clearly says nothing about how warm it was between 1998 and 2008, it only says that 2008 will be about as warm (or cool) as 1998. That's reminiscent of financial indicators. If we say that inflation was zero in March, then that means that prices are the same as they were last March, regardless of how high or low they were in the months between.

Seen from the perspective of a global warming fantasist, that in itself can be pretty significant when you consider that 1998 was in the middle of an el nino period, which is supposed to be significantly warmer than la nino periods, such as we have been experiencing since the middle of 2007. That would mean that it about the same temperature at the cold end of the cycle now as it used to be at the warm end of the cycle, which would indicate a significant warming. I'm not saying that I believe that's a long term trend, but I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't disprove one.

I'm on your side in the global warming discussion, but let's keep our integrity intact.
April 10, 2008 4:28 AM
Kermit, I agree with Jason. Your Hot Air series was waaaay better than this. There are quite a few logic holes in your analysis here. I too want to get rid of all the global warming hype, but you can't swing at every ball that crosses the plate. It is perfectly reasonable for there to be dips (both up and down) in the middle of a consistent trend. And the consistent trend of warming, over the past two decades, is pretty clear. Everyone, on both sides of the debate, agrees that there has been a rise of a degree or two in the core temperature over the past hundred years. The problem with the debate is that - from that point on - the left blames the industrial revolution and technological advance as the chief culprit and suggests that by stopping all that, we can reverse the warming. I happen to believe that the warming is related to matters that humans cannot contribute like solar activity and regular atmospheric cycles. But to say that there is no calculable warmth is mistaken. That, at the very least, seems to be a rather simple (albeit isolated) figure that can be agreed on.
April 10, 2008 8:53 AM
This article
has a lot of interesting facts about energy use. There is a pie graph showing world energy sources. The diagram makes it clear that renewables are a pitifully small fraction and we'll have to construct a great many more conventional plants to stay ahead of demand over the next 50 years.

Absent a major technological breakthrough, we're stuck wtih fossil fuels.
April 25, 2008 10:35 AM
December 15, 2008 9:22 PM
zzzzzzz has just conceded the argument. By not being able to cite any facts, he in effect admits that he has none. Absent logical arguments to the contrary, the article stands.

When people can't fight your logic, they fight you. Thus, when someone attacks you instead of attacking your logic, you know they've lost; all you have to do is point that out.

Too bad, zzzzzzz. If you'd had some facts, you might have gotten further.
December 15, 2008 10:29 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...