Global warming – the king is not wearing any clothes

After a number of years of irrational and apocalyptic pronouncements that the end of the world is nigh it seems that we are now waking up to the fact that global warming may not exist and if it does is not caused by human activity.

I am not an expert in such things but ………….  I do believe that the earth warms up and cools down on a fairly regular basis. I understand a hundred years ago people were skating on the Thames, thousands of years ago animals more suited to tropical climates roamed this country and so on.

This all seems reasonable given that the Sun performs in an erratic manner, the axis of the earths rotation has the occasional wobble and at times the earth has volcanic eruptions and we have also been subject to meteorite strikes. 

What has never been clear to me is why, until very recently, we have decided that our ability to affect things is more significant than nature itself. It feels a bit arrogant.

We have had a number of very able lobbyist including the greens, Lib Dems and “experts” who have decided that this issue is the most important and is threatening life itself. Well meaning I am sure but very damaging to our economy and now not even backed up with facts. Anything that supports this apocalyptic view is trumpeted and those who are not convinced are berated for being non believers. This is a bullying tactic that frankly I object to.

Recent data released, very quietly, shows that the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago. It seems that from 1997 until August 2012 there has been no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This plateau phase has lasted for the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, from 1980 to 1996.  Before that it seems that temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. This data is compiled from more than 3000 measuring points on land and at sea.

Interesting, experts don’t agree. Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the UEA dismissed the platueau saying that the 16 years is too short a period to draw conclusions. That seems a little odd as it was a similar 16 year period that started this emotional rant that we are all doomed.

In 2009, as the plateau became obvious, he claimed in an email exposed by Climategate that, “bottom line, the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried” That now seems to have changed to 15 years plus a further 5 years. Expect to see him wandering the streets of Norwich with a placard declaring the “The end is nigh” shortly.

The rise in temperature since 1880 is 0.75 of a degree Celsius. Hardly the 5 degrees that has been predicted. 

For balance Professor Judith Curry who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university made it clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were deeply flawed.

So, what does all this mean. Well, the overbearing theories espoused by the bourgeoise left wing academics are costing us all dearly. Green subsidies being provided to the renewable industry amount to about £100 for an average household this year.

Let us be clear. Global warming and cooling, don’t forget the ice ages, has been going on forever. Some of this change might have been caused by the burning of fossil fuels but evidence is now starting to show that it might be happening much slower that the catastrophists have suggested and might have nothing to do with humans after all.

What is sad is that anyone who questions the alarmists doomsday scenario is automatically labelled a denier and someone who threatens the future of humanity. Not a healthy debating position. 


43 thoughts on “Global warming – the king is not wearing any clothes

  1. You omitted to mention that they’ve changed the basis of their measurements from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4 which is manipulated to an even greater extent to show a bias toward warming. Even with this it’s clear that temperatures are not following carbon dioxide increases. Their theory has broken, but I expect they’ll die before admitting to that.


    • Nick Clarke is absolutely right to draw attention to this development and the Met Office are wriggling on the end of a hook.

      Judith Curry responded to the Met Office reply on her blog and the following comment and following quotes by prominent scientists are notable:

      JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:

      Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in [Nuccitelli’s] argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

      Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’, mentioned in my previous post Candid comments from global warming scientists

      Kevin Trenberth:

      The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required

      Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration,” he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but “they’re not there yet.”

      Susan Solomon:

      “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT. “And that’s all good. There is no silver bullet. In this case, it’s four pieces or five pieces of silver buckshot.”

      Jim Hansen:

      These revelations are prompting the science’s biggest names to change their views.

      Indeed, the most important outcome from the energy hunt may be that researchers are chronically underestimating air pollution’s reflective effect.

      “Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” Hansen said. “But it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed. So the Faustian aerosol bargain is probably more of a problem than had been assumed.”

      Judith Lean:

      Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.”


  2. You really shouldn’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail.

    You are basically saying that because the red bit of the graph in this article

    has flattened out a bit we can ignore the blue bit and everything is ok. You are also ignoring the effects of el niño / la nina which are are a major cause of the flattening and are hiding the underlying trend.

    What evidence is showing that climate change is happening more slowly than predicted? The melting Arctic ice cap perhaps!


    • I’m afraid a rebuttal by a journalist who can state the following with a straight face doesn’t count as ‘more expert comment’.

      “The fact that ice sheets are melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic is another stark indicator of global warming that Rose chooses to ignore.”


  3. The most important line in this piece is the last one.

    “What is sad is that anyone who questions the alarmists doomsday scenario is automatically labelled a denier and someone who threatens the future of humanity”

    It has become like a new religion and the howling and jeering at people who question the premise is shocking.

    Even the phrase: “The science is settled” puts my teeth on edge – aren’t we lucky that scientists back through history did not take this view? We’d still believe in Geocentricity. We’d think that things burnt because of Phlogiston. We’d be sure that the body was made up of four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. We’d be treating acne, asthma, cancer, cholera, coma, convulsions, diabetes, epilepsy, gangrene, gout, herpes, indigestion, insanity, jaundice, leprosy, ophthalmia, plague, pneumonia, scurvy, smallpox, stroke, tetanus and tuberculosis with leeches. And we’d have no clue whatsoever that time is relative.

    Of course the warmists might be right. But to say that the “science is settled” and to discount alternative views – even from eminent and learned scientific colleagues – begins to look like an agenda.

    Might I recommend for those with a sceptical (read: open) mind check out the most-read climate website in the world, where real debate and challenge still takes place.


  4. Cllr. Clarke:

    Thankyou for writing your article.

    The importance of the recent 16 year period of non-warming is what it indicates concerning the validity of climate science as reported by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The 1997 UN IPCC AR4 Report predicted (n.b. predicted not projected) that global temperature would rise over the first two decades after 2000 at an average rate of 0.2deg.C/decade +/-20%. This rise was certain because it was “committed warming” which the climate models said must occur as a result of anthropogenic GHG emissions already in the system.

    The IPCC prediction can be seen at
    In the graph the orange line represents the “committed” temperature increase the IPCC said would occur after 2000 if there were no additional CO2. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the projected “committed” warming while CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration levels have continued to rise.

    There are only four possible meanings of the flat-line in global temperatures over the last 16 years; i.e.
    1. The models are wrong.
    2. The global temperature estimates are wrong.
    3. Natural climate variation is sufficient to overwhelm anthropogenic warming.
    4. Some or all of the possibilities 1 to 3.



  5. Even though the IPCC admits it has a “low level of scientific understanding” of many of the natural processes affecting climate, they still come up with nonsense statistical statements like “We are 95% sure that more than 50% of the warming is due to humans” in their ‘summaries for policy makers’.

    Good to see that some who move in political circles are at last calling them on it. Peter Lilley did a good job on dismembering the Stern Report recently too.

    I spent three days down at the Royal Society conference on ‘Handling problems of uncertainty in weather and climate prediction’ last week. Judith Curry was one of the speakers there. Hers was a refreshingly frank assessment of the state of play with climate models. Not many of the met office team down there seemed able to meet her critique head on though. It’s as if uncertainty over things like solar variability just don’t compute in the modellers world.

    They need to open their window and breathe some of the cool sharp October air, which is currently at November temperatures.

    Nick, feel free to use my email to contact me for an in depth briefing if you need one.


  6. The Met Office appears to agree there has not been any signficant warming in the period in question (they cite 3/100ths of a degree C for the period – given the error bars in temperature measurement, that’s the same as zero). The main point seems to be that they don’t feel that 15 years is long enough to be material. If the (lack of) trend continues for another 5 years, they’ll be arguing that 20 years isn’t significant.

    But, get one hot summer, and it armageddon. Very tiresome.


  7. I basically stopped believing when the ridiculous statistics of the Mann works were defended by main stream climate scientists when to anybody with a few years of University stats they were clearly crap. The scientists that defended his work are responsible in large part for not only the now rampant skepticism of Climate Science but also to a general degredation in respect for all science. Your actions are unforgivable because not only have you damaged science, the only tool we have for uncovering truth, you have, if AGW is true, set us back 50 years. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.


  8. “Well, the overbearing theories espoused by the bourgeoise left wing academics are costing us all dearly.”

    Have you forgotten that the Global Warming theory was put on the political agenda by Margaret Thatcher as a weapon against the mining unions?

    But if we really want to bring an end to this nonsense (and I really do) it would be better to drop the left/right accusations and concentrate on showing the inadequacy of the science.

    That will appeal to everyone, regardless of their political leanings.

    (If you really want to be political about it, you could point out that it is the ordinary people who suffer from it, while fat cats make huge profits from the “green” economy.

    And there is plenty more.)


  9. The inadequacy of the science is shown in the UEA graph of Global temperatures over 150 years.Their methods of “adjusting” sea surface temperatures are completely stark staring bonkers…..


  10. The energy supply firms have caught a great deal of flak this week which they have bravely borne.
    The Press and Parliament have sternly rebuked them for profiteering to the tune of 6% and passing these ill gotten gains to their rapacious shareholders.
    The elephant in the room in the form of 10% environmental charges on all our bills and a further 3% charge to renew the grid to enable it to convey the fluctuating and at times pitiful output of green generators such as Wind and PV are however studiously ignored, and in my experience very few consumers are aware of the massive sums being transferred from them to Landowners and the very firms that Press and Parliament are castigating in the first place!
    When the final nail is hammered home in the coffin of the CO2 scam, there will be a day of reckoning for those who cynically caused such suffering to the poor and elderly.
    The omens are already not good, but let us hope that the coming winter is not too harsh for those in fuel poverty.


  11. Nick, you have my respect for thinking for yourself, a refreshing change many in your position should adopt, dig deeper & you will be horrified.

    ps. is there any blog J.Bowers (big oily) does not infect with his bile ?


  12. This is not a victimless crime. In fact, the victim count is so high it has become a Stalinesque statistic. Count me in with the mob with cudgels and torches when the reckoning comes due.


  13. Full marks to Nick Clarke.

    Now even Mr Cameron refers to the green fat-cat lobby (and let me assure you they are that) as “The Green Taliban”.

    We must scrap or suspend the “Climate Change Act”, passed in 2008 in October DURING A SNOW STORM (caused, of course, by ‘global warming’!!). or simply ignore it as a piece of sick comedy. It is costing the poorest the most, both in this country and abroad.

    Threats of ‘global warming’ are used by NGOs and charities (such as Christian Aid) to prevent Africa developing using their fossil fuels. As result people in Africa are dying right now. What’s ‘christian’ about that? I no longer support Christian Aid or Tearfund for this reason.


    • “Now even Mr Cameron refers to the green fat-cat lobby (and let me assure you they are that) as “The Green Taliban”.”

      No, that’s George Osborne. The one with the father-in-law who’s a gas lobbyist and an unelected energy minister with the Foreign Office.


  14. Well Nick, you have certainly put your head above the parapet – well done! I am also a councillor, at New Forest, and I hold similar views to you on this subject. Last year I put a motion to my council – see this piece from my blog for details. I think my council may have been the first to pass such a motion. Perhaps you could do something similar. Best wishes to you.


  15. I was working at UEA just before Climategate. Part of my work involved communicating to children that CAGW and Peak Oil were real. It was blisteringly obvious that the data and models did not support this, but my worm’s eye view was not of an altitude sufficient to perceive the full scale of the fraud and the racket. I tended to see it at the time as a run-of-the-mill scientific dead end, and at most a minor academic or funding spin to obtain funding and kudos. What amazed me in 2010 after the full extent of the fraud worldwide was exposed was that the politicians missed the opportunity to speedily efface the blunder of the 2008 Climate Change Act. Were they in on the scam or just sleep-walking or scientifically backward? The errors in the school textbooks may have been corrected, or at least worked around in the classroom, but in the UK we seem to be determined to destroy the economy by artificially inflating energy prices at a time of energy abundance.

    What happened in Spain and Portugal as a result of this fraud was tragic. However, Germany may be able to recovery quickly by its policy of rapid deployment of lignite power stations.

    The more immediate problem is that wind farms and photovoltaic installations are being rolled out by central government edict, over-ruling the views of local councils. Most councillors just go along with crowd, and it is heartening to see one turn against the tide, and even better to see it done on a rational argument rather than nimbyism. However, it is a pity that it was too late to save Fulbourn[1].



  16. Thank you for your very courageous stand, Mr. Clarke, and keep up the good work.

    You have many, many supporters.


  17. Your lack of expertise in these matters is painfully apparent.

    1. All cycles affecting earths climate are well documented and understood. Current climate change occurs at a time when earth should be cooling. The only possible explanation is the greenhouse effect.

    2. Your feelings of arrogance are misplaced. Mankind is having a devastating effect on earth. Congratulate yourself on your species ability to pollute the largest of oceans with chemicals and plastics. A pat on our collective backs for our ability to tear up the environment in pursuit of material wealth and poison freshwater with an abundance of chemicals. Award a gold medal for our collective ability to wipe out species at a rate not seen for 60 million years. We’re hoovering the life out of the oceans without any consideration for what this means for all our futures. Coming from Cambridgeshire I presume you haven’t ever stood over a big city and observed the pall of smog and dirt generated on a single day! Have you ever thought about how much carbon dioxide one city can generate in a year? We sequester nearly 50% of the suns energy reaching the earths land surface!

    3. “Recent data released, very quietly” – what data. It’s public domain fool! And it shows a warming trend!

    4. “Interesting, experts don’t agree” – Which experts don’t agree? Name your sources or be damned man.

    5. “Hardly the 5 degrees that has been predicted” – Who predicted this and did they predict it by 2012?

    6. “computer models used to predict future warming were deeply flawed” – I’m sure they are, but that still doesn’t mean they are useless. None predicted the melt of Arctic ice seen this summer!

    7. “Well, the overbearing theories espoused by the bourgeoise left wing academics are costing us all dearly” – The ridiculous posturing of politicians will cost us more, especially ones with no understanding od science.

    8. “Some of this change might have been caused by the burning of fossil fuels but evidence is now starting to show that it might be happening much slower that the catastrophists have suggested and might have nothing to do with humans after all” – Make your mind up. Is it or not, and what evidence are you talking about. Give the how air you have spouted here sum substance and debate with science, not opinion.

    9. “What is sad is that anyone who questions the alarmists doomsday scenario is automatically labelled a denier” – Offering opinion is not debating. Give some hard facts and evidence if you want to debate, not just political waffle and opinion.


    • After the insult in the very first line, I got as far as “1. All cycles affecting earths climate are well documented and understood.”.

      No point in reading beyond that, you really haven’t the first clue.

      And you have the damn gall to accuse others of arrogance.



  18. This article shows that the only reason David Rose got the results he printed in his article is because he cherry-picked the data to get the results he wanted.

    He even admits to doing this (although he doesn’t realise he’s admitting it).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s