Can someone pause Al Gore for the next decade?

Verity

Yes, I noticed it. Climate change finished yesterday, as far as I can tell, and has entered a ten year intermission, which is a long time to keep Al Gore on hold.

Rob

They cannot predict what the weather will be next week but they claim they know what the weather will be in ten years.
The sad bit is that there are plenty of lazy minds out there to believe them. How will the Beeb spin this?

Rob

Silence!! No more of your meddlesome questions! Just hand over your money and national sovereignty to Mother Earth and her humble servant Al Goracle!

John O'Connor

Actually the Beeb was hilarious discussing this.

A line that went something like "The trouble with this is that people won't take the dangers of Climate Change seriously"

Barry Larking

Here in the north east of England Spring has been later this year – perhaps closer to those of several years ago. Some trees even in the city where I live are only now coming into leaf on 2nd May.

I have long doubted the climate change theory so favoured by 'scientists'. There were and are many in science who do so. But then I have seen with my own eyes evidence of climatic change which far exceeds anything happening (or abating) today, evidence for a warm period long, long, before the industrial age.

Laura

If it's good to bash America with and it averts the Lefty buffoons' eyes from Islamist terrorism (the global threat they don't have the guts to deal with) then the global warming theory must be supported at all costs – even when we're cooling down.

Kirt Griffin

I love this article. Good show Melanie! A flexible theory indeed. I have been researching these claims for a couple of years now and my conclusion is it is more about money and power than science. Just google "Maurice Strong".

Edward Welsh

Straight to the point, as usual Melanie. By contrast for incomprehensible waffle on this see this week's Earthlog (Charles Clover) in The Telegraph.

Ian C

And that will make it 18 years since any warming occurred. Interesting. I smell a manouevre in the alarmist camp.

Corbett Kroehler

It's easy to be confused because the vested interests of old energy have billions to contribute to disinformation and obfuscation. The simple truth is this: it was the British who proved scientifically that more carbon in the atmosphere means higher temperatures. Worldwide, we dump 70,000,000 tons of new carbon into the atmosphere every day. That means that it is a scientific fact that the global temperature is rising.

Nick Kaplan

Corbett Kroehler; you say “the British proved scientifically that more carbon in the atmosphere means higher temperatures. Worldwide, we dump 70,000,000 tons of new carbon into the atmosphere every day,” as if this is some deductive proof that temperatures are rising, thereby implying any contrary empirical observation (i.e. one that doesn’t show temperatures to be rising) must be false. But the statement that ‘temperatures are rising’ is an empirical statement and it is very poor logic indeed to suggest it can be proven deductively. Being an inductive statement the only proof of which it is susceptible, is that of observation i.e. actually monitoring temperature increases. If it can be shown temperatures are not increasing then one of the premises of the initial argument must be false, and as it is presumably not false that we dump 70,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each day, those scientist must have been wrong to claim that more carbon would lead to higher temperatures. Imagine the analogous (hypothetical) argument for rain, “Scientists have proven that if there are clouds it will rain, there are clouds, therefore it must be raining.” If there isn’t any rain observed one doesn’t conclude there was rain, one concludes either there were no clouds or that it was false to suggest ‘if there are clouds it will rain”. This of course does not prove that temperatures haven’t increased, but unless you can shown me some empirical evidence that they have, one can only conclude the environmentalists are wrong.

David MacKinnon

The Global Warming enthusiasts, faced with contrary data, simply move the goalposts. Reminds me of other religious fanatics, having set a date for doomsday only to find it pass, promptly setting another date with undiminished fervor.

Wilson Flood

Melanie, I love you. Richard Wood also said that it is important to distinguish between climate change and climate variability. My dictionary defines variability as change. So, these people are now totally brainwashed and no longer thinking like scientists. Change means unidirectional change ie getting hotter, which is not what change means. Humpty Dumpty science - when I use a word it means what I want it to mean.

Richard

Nick Kaplan "This of course does not prove that temperatures haven’t increased, but unless you can shown me some empirical evidence that they have, one can only conclude the environmentalists are wrong."

Nick alow me to show you some empirical evidence that temperature have increased.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Jimmy Mac

Could it have been a change of policy before the elections? Yes, clearly the beginning of a re-positioning exercise by the lefties. Just wait for more obfuscations replete with multisyllable jargon. They will not be deterred from continuing to rifle your bank account with more taxes. After all, such confusion can only be resoved by more "research".

Verity

Nick Kaplan and Jimmy Mac - Brilliant!

Barry

Richard,
Seeing you want to cite Nasa how about reading this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

"NASA and Had-Crut data are largely based on surface measurements, using thermometers. They both face a lot of difficulties due to contaminated data caused by urban heating effects, disproportionate concentration of thermometers in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time, changes in station locations, loss of stations, changes in the time of day when thermometers are read, and yet more factors."

Melanie should get a kick out this. :-)

Charles Smith

Could the climate change sceptics here (including Mrs Phillips) please tell us what evidence they would require to accept the existence of long term manmade global warming? Thanks.

john

There are two sources of heat that effect our climate - the sun and the earth's core. Substantial volcanic activity occurs beneath oceans and effects water temeratures. This has been neglected in discussions about climate change. It is likely to be random, and not effected by human behaviour. "An inconvenient truth" may be a more prescient title than the author intended.

Terry

If Al Bore stopped jetting around the world lecturing us mere mortals, who haven't got anywhere near winning an oscar for best fiction, on how wicked it is to fly.....then I reckon the amount of avaition generated carbon in the atmosphere would at least halve. Since when does winning an oscar count as a qualification in climate science anyway?!!

Mark Pollock

Charles SMith ask what "evidence sceptics would require to accept the existence of long term manmade global warming?"

Easy. I would like to see a model used to predict future temperatures illustrate and explain historic temperatures. This model would illustrate and explain the Roman Warm Period, when grapes were grown in Yorkshire, the Medieval Warm Period when much of Greenland was ice free (Where did the polar bears go then?). The model should properly illustrate and explain the Little Ice Age when the Thames froze and should show how the Thirties were the hottest decade of the twentieth century.

Kelvin

Date: 30th April 2008
Place: (I will just say I was doing my job outside)
Weather: Very wet, very cold and very windy.
My thoughts: I blame global warming!

Charles Smith

@ Mark Pollock

Thanks for the clear reply. However there is a view that modelling is unlikely to be able to make highly accurate predictions (see for example this article in New Scientist http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html). Mrs Phillips has made clear her objection to modelling in other articles (broadly, her view is that models are no better than guesses).

The model you have proposed would presumably be a simulation, but even if one started it running at year (say) 1000BC, and it predicted everything you want it to, up to and including the 1930s warm period, how can you be sure that it would accurately predict what will happen in (again, say) 2100?

The IPCC bases its views on about 19 different models, to try and sort the wheat from the chaff, but even so there is still uncertainty.

So I'm wondering what //evidence// would be acceptable? By evidence I mean currently measurable changes; empirical evidence, in other words, rather than simulations.

Augustus

I once asked a scientist why it was that the average global temperature between 1940 and 1975 decreased, while CO2 concentrations during the same period increased rapidly. His answer was that it was probably due to the large amounts of coal being burned during those years. Therefore, it is safe to assume that any models combining these linked phenomena will invariably produce different forecasts. It must, in the longer term, also be true that man's contribution to global warming will be marginal compared to the effects of weather patterns cycles, volcanic cycles, and variations in solar activity. And predictions of climate change will vary according to differences in data input of those phenomena.

I was once hoping to ask Al Gore a question when he was due to speak at a venue near to me. He did not come. A spokesman said that he had asked £100,000 and it was more than they could afford. The question I had wanted to ask him was: Can you comment on the fact that the 'global warming industry' is now worth more than $50bn in America alone? Aren't you on to a good thing? The world is full of confidence trickery, and climate change is no exception.

Mark Lowers

There is broad scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change but there still a huge amount of ongoing research into many of the details. Keenlyside and his colleagues paper mentioned by the Telegraph deals with some of the details but expressly states they not doubt the broad consensus view on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

The suggestion that this gives the lie to the notion that there is universal scientific consensus on AGW is just plain wrong.