Global Warming Pause? What Pause?


On Thursday April 3rd, I took part in a Hustings-type debate in a lecture hall at Nottingham Trent University.  It was organised by the Nottingham Post, and we had Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, and Green candidates – although I was the only #1 candidate present.  I had understood that Bill Newton Dunn was to be there, but in the end he sent a substitute.

Given that Bill has made a big deal of “challenging Helmer to a debate”, and issued press releases saying that I’d “ducked out” of a debate with him, I was mildly amused that he’d failed to show at this event, where he could have debated with me and taken questions from the public.

I arrived well ahead of time (it’s that punctuality anxiety again), as did one or two members of the audience, and a lively informal debate started up before the formal kick-off time.  One member of the audience was a bright young man who seemed to be a member of the University Debating Society.  He was also studying politics, and as a result he naturally took the view that he was an expert on the climate debate.  We rehearsed a few of the standard lines of argument.  Then I pointed out to him that in fact there had been no “global warming” for seventeen years.  A look of total derision and contempt came over his face, as if he were asked to debate with a six-year-old or a congenital idiot.  Here he was (his expression said) face-to-face with an ignorant, prejudiced red-neck heretic who obviously knew absolutely nothing about the subject under debate.  Or at least nothing like as much as a twenty-year-old politics student.

The thing I found shocking was the fact that (A) he considered himself to be well-informed on the climate issue, but (B) he simply had no idea about the “pause”, which is increasingly central to the climate debate.

I had to explain to him in words of one syllable that there are four major and reputable global sources of meteorological and temperature information.  These are not front organisations for dodgy climate sceptics, but official, highly respected and universally accepted sources of data, used by the IPCC and everyone else concerned with the debate.  GISS is NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.  HADCRUT4 comes to us courtesy of the UK Met Office (which as we know has a perfect forecasting record!) UAH is the University of Alabama in Huntsville. RSS Remote Sensing Systems uses microwave data from satellites.  Find all their graphs covering recent years here.

Many people regard satellite data as intrinsically more reliable than ground station data.  The latter can be biased by changes in the database (for example many weather stations in cold areas disappeared with the demise of the USSR).  Then there’s the famous Urban Heat Island effect  Over time, sprawling suburbs surround long-established weather stations.  Or people tarmac the field for a car park.  Or put a new air-conditioner in an adjacent building.  Or in one case build a new runway allowing jet engine exhaust to play on the weather station.  Not surprisingly, this tends to exaggerate temperature readings.

So perhaps it’s significant that while three of the four record sets appear to show broadly static global temperatures this century, the RSS satellite data (above) seem to show a slight decline.

But my ace debater and politics student still thought that the global warming pause was so utterly mistaken as to be simply ridiculous.  We still have some education to do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Global Warming Pause? What Pause?

  1. Peter L says:

    What’s really alarming in all this is the growing demand (from those who are committed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming), that the media be prevented from reporting any questioning of their orthodoxy.

    A good example is Bob Ward who just this morning demanded media control.

    This tendency is beyond anti-democratic, silencing “heretics” is the first step towards punishing heretics. As the German poet Heine said: when they start by burning books, they end by burning men.

  2. omanuel says:

    More and more people are awakening to an incredible reality: The inhabitants of planet Earth have been deceived by our own governments for several decades:

    • omanuel says:

      As a political leader, you may be able to help society recover.

      On awakening to deception, our first natural response is anger and a desire to retaliate or punish.

      That would only damage society more. Many ordinary folks were unwittingly involved in the deception.

      Real leadership will be required for society to regain confidence in our governments.

      May you have the wisdom to help society recover.

    • omanuel says:

      The Czech President recognized the seriousness of government deceit in 2007:

      Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles (Competitive Enterprise Institute, first edition, 2007) 100 pages,

    • omanuel says:


      The Pulitzer committee has awarded American journalism’s highest honor to Britain’s The Guardian and to The Washington Post for their ongoing coverage of Snowden’s bombshell revelation of the scope of domestic and international U.S. government spying:

      That is an encouraging indication that the Climategate scandal and perhaps sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs) of deceit disguised as consensus science, may soon be coming to end too.

  3. Francis says:

    Roger, while I was never sure about climate change and while I am coming around to your viewpoint on that debate, I still believe that we must move away from fossil fuels. It is a fact that when we burn something it will create pollution. That is the biggest issue facing the world now because we are burning too much. We must separate climate change from fossil fuel pollution as these are two distinct issues. Although the CC lobbyists will argue one is linked to the other. If we could consentrate on reducing pollution that would have a very positve effect on our health and wellbeing. That is something the man in the street can understand. We can then leave the academics to argue their cases about CC.

    • Me_Again says:

      Echo that Francis.
      However the biggest crime is to burn fossil fuels at all. What a waste of hundreds of thousands of incredibly versatile hydrocarbons, all finite as the reserves.

      We just need to switch to nuclear but that can’t be the answer for everyone [esp Japan with its proximity to tectonic plates] But if even most of us do then that will reduce the burning of these precious substances and maybe give us the time to develop Thorium reactors and reduced the size of the plants to portability.

    • Russellw says:

      Move to the countryside.

  4. frostyface says:

    With regard to the Student, didn’t we all know all of the answers when we were his age?

  5. DougS says:

    Not even the arch AGW alarmists deny the 17 year standstill in average global temperatures.

    Where on earth has the 20 year old student been getting his information from?

    • Flyinthesky says:

      It’s no longer science based at all, it operates on a belief structure, it sounds good and as children are force fed it as fact, it’s in their DNA, it becomes very difficult to challenge.
      I’m all for stewardship but it has become hysteria.
      It’s the same with the left wing, a pig with a red rose on it will prevail, it isn’t a fact or an evaluation process, it’s a belief.
      Despite availing themselves to every modern conveinience a green remains a green, how good am I supporting this.
      The eu operates on the same principle, it looks great as a concept, we’re all in it together.
      We’re not though are we! it’s all really for them, IPPC, Un, eu WTO et al, their motivation is continuance and empowerment.

  6. Me_Again says:

    Whilst I can by no means be called a warmist, I did come across a valid explanation [as someone with a scientific background] for the slowdown in temperature rise.
    The sun I think has more effect on things than is given credit by the IPCC or any of the other alarmists and they may have missed the boat for this as an excuse because of that lack of belief in the sun effect.
    We are apparently in a solar minimum which by all accounts should cause cooling. Some say it could even bring a mini ice age. Hold that thought for a moment.
    We cannot deny the temperature rise of 1970-2000. We cannot deny that CO2 does have an influence on global temperature up to a certain point.
    So why did it stop?
    There are a number of obvious possibilities
    1. the temperature stopped rising because it has nothing to do with CO2 levels and there are other influences we are not counting in.
    2. the temperature stopped rising because even though CO2 levels have risen they haven’t gone up enough to cause further rises.
    3 the temperature stopped rising because a counter-influence stopped it

    So one theory I heard was that the temperature stopped rising because the solar minimum is suppressing it. If this were true it would immediately undermine the IPCCs assessment of the sun’s influence on our climate. secondly if it were true then when the solar minimum ends, the temperature is going to soar. Well I doubt I’ll be around to see what happens but that’s probably a good thing because I wouldn’t be able to stand the smug faces if it turns out they are right afterall.

    Whoever is right or wrong, don’t make the mistake of becoming entrenched in an opinion because you become as bad as them.

    • omanuel says:

      I agree. Most arguments become “I’m right!” “No, I am right!”

      To avoid that endless and useless trap, I posted nine pages of precise experimental data (pp. 19-27) in my biography [1] that suggest:

      1. The Standard Solar Model is wrong.
      2. The Sun’s pulsar core made our elements, sustained the origin and evolution of life, and controls our fate.

      You can help resolve the debate by asking leaders of consensus science to publicly address the data shown on pages 19-27.

      1. “A Journey to the Core of the Sun – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality

      Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

    • Unless, of course; you happen to be right!

  7. A perfect example of why-Montford and GWPF report on climate activism’s indoctrination of school children acknowledged by government, how much actually gets done remains to be seen.

  8. dave/r says:

    roger why don,t you look at industrial hemp oil as a solution from what i read about this it could solve a lot of our problems

    • Me_Again says:

      Especially when you vapourise it…… it being from canabis sativum….
      [Before the lecture I know they use tall growing variants for hemp production but they used to say rats would nibble new hemp rope and become narcotised making it easier to knock them on the head and sling them overboard]

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      I don’t know about hemp oil particularly, but in general the problems with biofuels are that (A) they’re expensive; (B) if you look at the whole cycle of production and usage, they don’t save much on CO2 emissions, and in some cases increase it; (C) they use up good agricultural land and add to food shortages and poverty — at a time when the world needs all the food it can grow.

      • Me_Again says:

        Interesting that hemp has alternate uses though [apart from smoking it] I mean if you are growing it for rope/ fibre/bag material/clothing -if they still do- it isn’t taking up extra ag land. I do take your point regarding palm oil etc and the knock on effect of EU biofuel targets.

      • catalanbrian says:

        I agree with you.Roger. Biofuels are not the solution and agricultural land should be used for growing food. The best way to mitigate the excessive use of fossil fuels is to use less power.

  9. Mike Stallard says:

    I do coaching of A level students. I am currently studying the Reformation. Being right is the way to get yourself burned! It is much safer to go with the flow. The politics student learned that lesson well. He should go far.

  10. Thomas Fox says:

    Most people that work in all round weather – eg the Farmer do not believe that the Climate is changing to any significant amount, but the well educated younger agrarians have been wrongly taught that they are damaging the soil and the natural environment ,hence the warming ??

    • Me_Again says:

      That’s a mix of subjects there Thomas. I studied environmental science in the 90’s and the theme then was to try to get farmers away from intensive farming [mass use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides] into a less damaging way of doing things. The continuous production of large cereal crops is plainly essential to survival. The methods we were taught to try to get farmers to adopt were to have a fallow year for a field like our ancestors used to do. In that fallow field they could farm pigs in outside enclosures and or cows and sheep, moving them round to fertilise and keep the weeds down. An entirely scalable mixed farm scenario but plainly not suitable for all. Plainly rotating nitrogen fixing plants with other types to keep the soil healthy is a good idea but the benefit of the above method lies in a reduction of cost and an increase in variety of product.
      I don’t think anyone suggested they should not supplement the natural fertilizer but they could do a small scale trial and see whether it’s needed.

      I don’t see a link with intensive farming or other kinds of farming and alleged global warming.

      • catalanbrian says:

        Agreed. I also see no link between intensive farming and global warming (alleged or not) and although I prefer non intensive methods (I farm organically) this is not going to feed the ever increasing World population, so whether we like it or not we are at least for the time being going to have to rely on intensive methods, although the excessive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides does need to be addressed.

      • Me_Again says:

        Agreed, it’s the overspill into rivers and streams that cause the direct problem from fertilizers but the pesticides are worse. Ever since they wrongly banned DDT………………..
        Agree regarding feeding the growing population………………

  11. Thomas Fox says:

    Environmental science is an important study but this increase in knowledge has become predominant thoughtout all activities to the point where technical terminology is so abundant that the less educated could believe all is true when some is total rubbish as in climate warming?

    • Me_Again says:

      Can’t argue with that.
      What really needs to happen is that those studying environmental science are not brainwashed into AGW. It was still not accepted by governments as anything more than a nuisance green issue, but the writing was on the wall. The grooming of the new fanatics was already underway.
      I so hate entrenched views on either side, they do not permit change or logic.

  12. catalanbrian says:

    And perhaps I should use the term “Climate Change”, rather than “Global Warming”, as this is a more accurate title.

    • Me_Again says:

      NO, global warming was the meme they started with, this is what is asserted.
      Climate change is natural at the very least and unproven as human engineered.

  13. Mike Stallard says:

    This is a fudge.
    There was a film produced immediately after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth which stated quite clearly that the sun caused differences in global temperatures, as far as they can be measured. C02 followed this trend. The evidence was quite clearly shown on ice samples from the poles.

    The Global Warming idea was called AGW. Man is entirely responsible for Global Warming which is going to be disastrous. The sea level will rise and flood London, Bangla Desh and the Maldives.
    Unless we stopped all carbon we would all die horribly very soon with a few years…

    When it didn’t happen, the idea of AGW was morphed into Climate Change and the disaster was modified. Now it is Global Weirding and every time it rains or the wind blows it is proof of Climate Change and unless we do something…

  14. catalanbrian says:

    In this blog you state “The thing I found shocking was the fact that (A) he considered himself to be well-informed on the climate issue, but (B) he simply had no idea about the “pause”, which is increasingly central to the climate debate.” I would appreciate, therefore your comments on this.

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 )

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