Global warming comes unglued

What a difference a few months have made in the global warming debate. I have long been skeptical of the hysterical, Al-Gore supporting, anti-growth, anti-western, anti-capitalist individuals who back global warming. Over the past few months, large holes have appeared in their arguments. It’s becoming apparent that current supporters--dogmatic, doctrinaire and scornful of skepticism—don’t reflect true science. However things have changed. It’s not just the supporters but the scientists themselves who are looking hysterical and biased beyond belief.


Want some proof? Here’s one example. London's Sunday Times reports that scientists are "casting doubt" on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution," a claim the IPCC describes as "unequivocal":

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. "The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."


How about another example? Sure. The BBC has an extraordinary interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure. In the interview, Jones admits that the periods 1860-80 and 1910-40 saw global warming on a similar scale to the 1975-98 period, that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and that the so-called Medieval Warm Period calls into question whether the currently observed warming is unprecedented.

There’s plenty more in this interview, but I’ll save it for my next blog. Meanwhile, have a healthy dose of skepticism when the lab-coats tell us where the truth lies.