Is climate tide turning?

Strange emissions that may or may not have an effect on the future of the planet have been detected this month. Scientists not funded by anyone in particular have got to the bottom of it, and have found that these emissions are caused by thinking.

Until now, thinking about climate change has been forbidden. We have been told: “The debate is over.” The number of scientists happy with that amazing statement reached alarming proportions, and politicians, who find not thinking a good basis for winning elections, bought into it enthusiastically. UK politicians in particular, who think at an extremely low level, bought into it so enthusiastically that it shaped all their policies. No, I mean all their policies. Health and safety, everything.

But now, in the words of one editorial, the “climate tide is turning”. People are starting to think. So much so that even the BBC, which for years has given unquestioning backing to the theory of catastrophic climate change, has published an article on its website which asks: “What happened to global warming?”

In it, climate correspondent Paul Hudson admits that there has been no increase in global temperatures for 11 years, even though carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase.

And climate models, which we are asked to believe are close to infallible, “did not forecast it”. Further on in the article we read that solar scientist Piers Corbyn says that solar charged particles “are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures”. And Professor Don Easterbrook suggests that global temperatures follow ocean warming and cooling cycles.

None of this is new. What is startling is that the BBC is admitting it. It is not conclusive either. But nor is it wacky, irresponsible, or the work of people who are “not really scientists”.

Also on the BBC site is an article admitting that this summer’s melt of Arctic sea ice was not as profound as in the last two years. To put it another way, the extent of the ice was larger than seen in the last two years, which makes you wonder about all those television programmes about Arctic ice disappearing.

Among the reasons for the less drastic melt are that “Arctic temperatures have been cooler this year than last, researchers said, and that winds have helped disperse sea ice across the region”. Interesting, Holmes.

Asked why this should be, scientist Walt Meier said the reasons for the somewhat cooler temperatures this year “were not entirely clear yet”.
Which is fair enough. Nevertheless the BBC site is still full of articles that assume what should still be open for debate, and present wild predictions as if they were definitely going to happen.

Another emission: last week the Sunday Times News Review published a massive front-page article headed “Why everything you think about global warming is wrong”.

In it, current climate predictions are described as “enormously crude” and climate models as being determined to a large extent by funding: in other words, if your model doesn’t match the mainstream, you don’t get the money.

Carbon dioxide, we are assured, is not only not poisonous but not even the major greenhouse gas. It is probably not responsible for any warming that has taken place, and the current amount in the atmosphere is nowhere near the highest in the earth’s history: “overall, more carbon dioxide is probably a good thing for the biosphere”.

What about sea levels? According to the Sunday Times article, rises in sea levels are not driven primarily by melting glaciers but by warming water. The sea has been rising for “roughly 12,000 years”, and the likely rise by the end of the century is about 18 inches, which is “much less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations”.

Despite the heavy emphasis on the effect of personal transport on the atmosphere, we are now told that “transport is not that big a sector” – in other words it has very little effect. And “coal is so cheap that trying to generate electricity without it would be economic suicide”. Solar cells could make global warming worse because 88 per cent of the light they absorb is re-radiated as heat.

There is much more in this article, including a very simple and cheap method of combating warming by introducing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. It is well worth reading, but I have not quoted from it here in order to refute all you thought you knew about climate change. The point is that here are extremely intelligent scientists who dispute the propaganda that is changing our lives so remorselessly – changing our lives because because no-one challenges it. We should listen, and think about it. Politicians should take it on board.

Instead they plunge on regardless. The latest ludicrous idea from the Government’s Climate Change Committee is that motorists should be forced to pay to drive on the busiest roads “to slash greenhouse gas emissions”. Drivers are also told they “should not brake suddenly”, which will present eco-enthusiasts with one or two interesting conundrums. Shall I hit that cyclist, or shall I save the planet? Tricky.

They haven’t noticed the tide turning, and nor have the disaster-loving Met office, who have just predicted a 4C temperature rise by 2060. The study that suggests this is of course based on computer modelling. The Scientific Alliance comments: “Given the source of the funding, the timing of the announcement and, indeed, the very topic of the conference, it is difficult not to suspect that this was a piece of contrived political theatre to raise pressure for a deal in Copenhagen.”

The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen is certainly in need of help, Many potential delegates have not registered in time, and apparently 2500 beds have been cancelled. Climate pledges made so far are “nowhere enough to avoid dangerous climate change” – though this should not worry us unduly as the calculations that give rise to this assumption are highly suspect anyway.

It is also becoming apparent that green supporters of the climate change scenario are getting worried. “Framing the issue as ‘global warming’ is completely hopeless.” writes one… “‘Global warming’ sounds nice, and ‘climate change’ sounds harmless, even positive.” These are the people who a few years ago insisted on ‘global warming’ instead of ‘climate change’ – but that was before the earth stopped warming, of course. What phrase would they like now? “The first reframe is this: it’s ‘global over-heat’, or ‘global cooking’, or ‘global over-heating’. It has to sound like what it is.”

Absolutely. It sounds like desperation. Desperation is what it is. And there are signs at last that it may not win the day.