Global Cooling continues

This graph shows average global temperature records for the last five years from two of the world’s most respected meteorological institutes, the UK’s Hadley Centre, and the University of Alabama in the US.  Both show a clear downward trend, and the graph contrasts that trend explicitly with the rising trend of atmospheric CO2.  So we have two conclusions: first of all, Al Gore’s alarmist predictions of rapidly accelerating temperatures, run-away warming and imminent Armageddon are just plain wrong, with each year that passes adding more nails to the coffin of his disaster movie.  Second, the supposed correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature just does not exist.  For years, temperatures have been falling while CO2 levels have risen.
The alarmists will try to explain this by calling on short-term effects which temporarily disrupt a long-term warming trend.  But some scientists who accept the alarmist position are now suggesting that these “short-term effects” could continue for another ten years.  How many decades have to pass before they recognise that they got it wrong, and that our climate mitigation policies represent a worse economic disaster than the current financial crisis?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Global Cooling continues

  1. i.p.f.meiklejohn says:

    I wish you could thump some of your good common sense into the conervative party hierarchy.

  2. Gene B says:

    Let’s hope that after they win, Sarah will whisper into John McCain’s ear the truth about the Global Warming Hoax — and he will hopefully veto any silly CO2 caps/tax legislature coming across his desk.

  3. jetstream says:

    Typo second para, second line. Should be “….disrupt a long-term warming trend.”

    Otherwise, spot on!!

  4. John Marshall says:

    Good sense at last, please instruct Cameron. The problem with politicians today is there complete lack of scientific knowledge, even the basics.
    The truth about CO2 is that it has never, throughout geological history, driven climate. So why would the physics change for it to do so now?
    Alarmists rely on models and the to put these in perspective you should look at a climate report by CSIRO for the South Australian Government which ended thus:- This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling, Models involve simplifications of the real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the South Australian Government for the accuracy of projections in this report or actions on reliance of this report.
    This just about says it all. Keep plugging away with the truth.

  5. Bobbt says:

    What does this have to do with McCain/Palin. Even if AGW is overblown, you shoot yourself in the foot making it political.

  6. I’ve done a very readable primer in skeptical Climate Science; it’s also the story of my U-turn from AGW. Have a look and pass it on please to those who want to know, think for themselves, etc.

  7. trevor collins says:

    greetings from New Zealand I trust you all saw the item on….China is getting GREENER. yes, GREENER, with more and more ’emission’s…but please do not tell the greenies, they will want some of this…and to top it all on this same family website, Earth’s Atmospheric Methane (CH4), has remained constant for the past 10 years )perhaps our cows are not farting so much,I pass some of them each day (I have not noticed!) thank you

  8. WWFLO says:

    I am so impressed. A politician from a mainstream party who has actually taken the trouble to look at a graph and can clearly understand it. So many politicians are functionally innumerate and hence are unable to think for themselves with regard to what requires a high degree of numeracy.

  9. Cthulhu says:

    The graph assumes each 5ppm rise in co2 is equivalent to 0.2C temperature rise, which is way too high.

    Scaled properly the co2 line should appear quite flat on that graph. That would of course reduce the difference between the temperature and co2 trend.

  10. Roger Helmer says:

    Bobbt: Since politicians make decisions based on alarmist hype, and since those decisions are very costly and damaging, it is difficult to avoid being political. WWFLO: Sorry I can’t match your stereotype of innumerate politicians. Maybe something to do with that 1965 Cambridge maths degree!

  11. H.Oldeboom says:

    When I saw this Hadley-CRUT3v picture on Icecap I noted that in March 2004, April 2006 and March 2008 a decrease in rise of CO2 can be seen.

  12. Bob Webster says:

    Bobbt: In the Biden-Palin debate, Biden proudly displayed his ignorance by claiming global warming is real and humans are causing it. We know Palin’s view on the subject (she is a skeptic who has, to this point, loyally parroted the McCain line). But both Obama and Biden are committed to doing what the environmental lobby tells them to do, whereas, McCain’s less odious position and lack of debt to environmental extremists puts him in a much better position to respond to reason and scientific facts (particularly with Palin helping the process).

    There is no question that, given the Obama-Biden position on drilling and their commitment to higher fuel and energy costs, the prospects of their “climate mitigation policies represent a worse economic disaster than the current financial crisis.”

    It would be folly to give politicians a pass who have endorsed the most zealous carbon dioxide mitigation schemes. Why give politicians a pass who promote idiotic regulations that are costly and will have no benefit whatsoever? The AGW issue has been political from the beginning. Some “scientists” (notably James E. Hansen) were trolling for funding (for NASA), but the agenda was set by politicians at the UN’s IPCC and played out in a dangerous script featuring psuedo-science and hyper-hysterical alarmism.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with politicians, since the science utterly rebukes the AGW theory (missing tropical mid-troposphere greenhouse warming signature, cooling poles, CO2’s lack of capacity to bring about significant warming, false feedback assumptions regarding water vapor, historical background warming trend predating the Industrial Age, etc., etc.).

  13. Roger Helmer says:

    H. Oldeboom: You’re stretching the meaning of the word “decrease”. The steady rise in seasonally-adjusted CO2 is about as constant and consistent as any natural phenomenon can be, and your “decreases” are utterly trivial.

  14. J. Roberts says:

    “The alarmists will try to explain this by calling on short-term effects which temporarily disrupt a long-term warming trend. But some scientists who accept the alarmist position are now suggesting that these “short-term effects” could continue for another ten years. ”

    Could you say what is wrong with this ‘alarmist’ position? It sounds plausible given how complicated the climate system is acknowledged as being (See e.g.: ), and the fact that the standard averaging period for climate is 30 years. (see references in: )

    At the moment you seem to be attempting to engage with theories concerning global warming at only the most most superficial level.

  15. Roger Helmer says:

    What is wrong with the alarmist position is that it invokes an exceptional explanation for a completely normal, cyclical change in temperature, and that it seeks to explain any event at all — heating, warming, whatever — by reference to its flawed paradigm. As evidence against the alarmist hypothesis builds up, it produces ever more convoluted special pleading to avoid facing the obvious.

  16. J. Roberts says:

    Thanks for the reply,
    I don’t think that the alarmist theory having an explanation for data you cite in your post constitutes a case of ‘convoluted special pleading’. At least you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever that it is. The theory is one which acknowledges that there are many factors which influence climate, and that therefore a continuous rise in CO2 won’t necessarily be accompanied by a rise in global temperatures in the short term.

    The claim that we are experiencing a completely normal cyclical change in temperature (not caused by a rise in CO2 emmissions?) is a different point altogether. You mentioned this in a previous post (‘Stop worrying about global warming’), but again your arguments for it were shallow (there are responses to such arguments on many sensible websites e.g.:, and appeared to be addressed to a massive oversimplification of the theory.

    Even a little research using resources available on the internet reveal that it’s a complicated theory about a complicated phenomenon. I know that I don’t have the expertise to effectively evaluate the evidence for and against it. You’ve previously claimed that as an elected representative you have to form opinions on areas in which you have little or no expertise. That may well be true. I think there’s an interesting question about how (and whether) one should write about things which one has little expertise in. But with respect, I suggest that the way to go about it is not to offer superficial arguments against an oversimplified version of the theory.

  17. Roger Helmer says:

    J. Roberts: I don’t have room in a blog (still less in comments) to set out the detail, and anyway that’s been done better than I can by (e.g.) Prof Fred Singer and others. But I have studied both the science and the economics, and I am satisfied that climate alarmism is a bigger threat to our society than climate change and global terorism combined.

    Worth pointing out that the first defence of the alarmist is to say that “it’s very complex”. But that is as good an argument against alarmism as it is for it. When you see the CO2/climate forcing equation, showing that future rises in CO2 will have little effect, you say “Ah, but it’s more complicated — there are positive feed-back mechanisms from other greenhouse gases”. But you can’t demonstrate these effects, and they may be negative. You see that the “fingerprint” of observed warming is wholly different from that predicted by computer models, and you say “That’s because it’s complex”. But sooner or later you need to look at the science, and recognise that the anthropogenic theory doesn’t match the observations. It is an hypothesis which has been tested, and has failed.

  18. John Morton says:

    Does anyone here feel as outraged as I do about the absolute disgrace of our Parliament debating a “world class bill” to implement legally binding CO2 emissions cuts by 80% (!!!) before 2050, while snow is falling outside in October???

    What is wrong with these dangerous lunatics?

    This bill is genocide.

  19. Pingback: While CO2 rises, Global Cooling continues... - Nissan Titan Forum

  20. Roger Helmer says:

    Or the RSPB blaming global warming for the decline in Scottish sea-birds, and ignoring the industrial-scale over-fishing of sand eels in the North Sea for fish-meal and fertiliser, and the dreadful depradations of the CFP?

  21. John Morton says:

    Do we, the British people, have to declare war on our own Parliament to see these measures put on the dustbin of history where they belong?

    What are our available channels for redress of the many many grievances we are suffering under this out of control REGIME???

  22. How ironic and coincidental:

    Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for over 70 years as the House of Commons debated Global Warming.

    “The Arctic has been experiencing very cold temperatures this year, so it was an unusually cold front. Some unusual wind patterns meant it was blown over Britain very quickly, meaning the temperatures stayed very low. It is certainly very, very unusual to see snow in London this early,” said Mr Chalcraft. “The last time there was October snow [in the South-East] was in 1974, but the last time we actually had snow cover in October [in London], which we did late last night, was in 1934.”, said Byron Chalcraft, a Met Office forecaster.”

    And if you are a director of a company,why not increase your profits? Use two simple tools to hit your competition. Chair the Climate Audit Committee and slam a tax in the name of AGW on your competitors:

    “It was reported that Tim Yeo MP Chair of the Climate Audit Committee – and who had ignored requests from scientists and the public for evidence to justify his Climate Change proposals – had admitted a conflict of interests over anti-CO2 laws House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 2008 Column 756.
    Mr. Yeo: I declare an interest that is in the register: I am a director of Eurotunnel, which provides a low-carbon transport route between Britain and the continent.”

    The tax in question being the inclusion of aviation and shipping into the emissions of CO2 legisation. How can vested interests like this be allowed?

  23. The sun caused the warming of the late 20th century, it is also causing the cooling in the past few years. The relationship between solar cycle length and temperature is well documented over hundreds of years. The current solar cycle is the longest since 1796 (longer cycles lead to cooling) and 4 of the 5 shortest cycles since 1600 were in the second half of the 20th century (short cycles lead to warming).

    I put a website together with many of these facts.

    One thing to think about. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have only increased 1/10,000th since the beginning of industrialization, hardley enough to melt the polar ice.

    Other fun facts, it was warmer in both the Midieval and Roman periods than today. Global temperatures have been in decline since 1998, and there is no net loss of polar ice, Antarctica, with 90% of the worlds ice, is currently of record size.

  24. Big Mack says:

    Roger, for pity’s sake put your DVD up on GOOGLE Video as ONE 40 minute Show, sending them out by SnailMail is soooo Twentieth Century.


  25. Big Mack says:

    Can you see the ONE tiny Sunspot (marked 1007)
    Normally they wouldn’t even count such a tiny blemish, but this is remarkable, because usually these days, the image is completely blank.

  26. Big Mack says:

    Check out this current NASA Satellite Image of the Arctic Ocean, it looks pretty FROZEN to me.


  27. Malcolm McClure says:

    I am a geologist with 45 years international experience and I would like to congratulate you on your DVD. You make the essential points about the fallacy of human responsibility for climate change much more succinctly and eloquently than I ever could.

  28. ian mckenna says:

    You are preaching to the converted to me. Of course AGW is a scientific and political fabrication.

    However, you leave yourself open to attack on the very grounds you attack from. Your graph covers only five years.There is plenty of unconvertrable evidence you could use for the whole century all the way back to millions of years.

    And isn’t the Hadley Centre that ‘highly respected’ organisation that refused data requests from an Australian scientins on the grounds ‘that you would only pick holes in it’? (Nigel Lawson)

    I don’t think that is how you do science.

  29. Egan Pendlebury says:

    The real facts are in. Hadley is discredited.
    My question is do we have to tax ourselves out of existence before our politicians see the light?
    I suspect it will be ice on the Thames before they see the light. We need a politician who can actually read the data rather than a AGW alarmist none scientific summaries. Please Mr Cameron (our next P.M) wake up you have the opportunity to make a real difference by simply listening.

  30. Pingback: NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and highly suspect data. « The IUSB Vision Weblog

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