I say YES, you say NO – who’s to know the truth?

On the one hand you have a scientific peer-reviewed new study showing that there was no global surface temperature rise between 1998 and 2008, and on the other you read that Asian pollution has slowed global warming.

Kind of makes on want to scratch one’s head! No surface temperature rise measured over a period of ten years….. what wonderfully fantastic news, but hang on the bell there Nelly, I thought Julia Gillard’s ‘tame scientists’ recently told us we were causing global warming because of all of our Carbon Emissions (and camel farts!)

Then a different set of geeks come out and say that all the sulphur being spewed into the atmosphere in Asia is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared.

Seems to me that the scientific community wants their bread buttered on both sides! The ABC News told us: The UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has confirmed 2010 was the warmest year on record, verifying a “significant” long-term trend of global warming. The trend also helped to melt Arctic sea ice cover to a record low for December last month, the WMO said in a statement.

Yet the new (sulphur) study tells us there has been a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998.

Blimey, if these top scientific institutions cannot get their facts right – maybe I should say ‘stories’, what hope have Julia and her merry band of legislators  got?

In the opening paragraph we were told there was no rise in temperatures between 1988-2008. In a subsequent paragraph (same article) we are advised:

Global temperatures did rise significantly between 1998 and 2008, despite human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide growing by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland’s University of Turku say pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fuelled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

So can someone please tell me did the Earth heat up or did it cool down? Did something happen or did it not happen? Seems either the scientists are confused (they most certainly are confounding) or the media do not know their hot from their cold!

Bottom line in all of this seems to be that because there is scientific proof that the world did not heat up during that ten-year time period, the scientific community – who rely heavily on study grants for their bread and butter, have come up with a new theory.

This theory is that Asian industry, spewing out all those sulphur emissions, may in fact be preventing the planet from heating up. BUT HANG IN THERE – there is some good news for the Global Warming Alarmist Camp – you know them who are relying on grants to come up with theories? Well they reckon once Asian countries clean up their act, the planet will warm up again.

Talk about double speak! As I said they are hedging their bets on this. They say the planet has not warmed up over a ten-year period because of all the emissions spewing out of Asian chimneys……. but if we can get them to cut their emissions we can get the world to warm up again!

Come on people…… Prime Minister’s Bob and Julia are about to hit you with a Carbon Tax, which is going to morph into an Emissions Trading Scheme, while at the same time the scientific community is boasting the world is not warming up.

Er…. excuse me but why? I thought that was what this was all about – trying to stop the world from warming up because of too much carbon (dioxide) being spewed into the atmosphere. Should we name this ‘vortex logic’?


 HELLO GOODBYE – Beatles   just as confounding as the scientific community!

About these ads

About JustMEinT Musings

I like writing, reading and expressing my opinions. I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.
This entry was posted in Anthropological Global Warming, Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax, CO2, GENERAL MUSINGS, The Green's and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to I say YES, you say NO – who’s to know the truth?

  1. Douglas says:

    Gad that’s a gas. Keep going JustMeinT. Pals of mine and contacts are goggling. They look at your fight, then they look at the likes of the $2m a year IPA and they say, why on earth are that lot on $2m a year when there is “this elderly lady on a pension in Tasmanian beating the living suitcase out of the Gillard Cabinet and the the likes of the IPA and Will Hodgman. ”


  2. Don’t be fooled by the white hair :-) I’ve been that shade since my mid 20′s.

  3. Well here is something that you have not heard before. It is scientifically impossible for CO2 to cause global warming. This is becauase the specific gravity is 1.52 which means that it is literally 152% heavier than air and sinks to the ground when released. According to the computer model of the IPCC it will rise into the atmosphere and stay there for a 100 years thus becoming cululative and causing warming. Not unless we repeal the Law of Gravity.

    The scientists state that we have had a 80PPM increase in the levels of CO2 after 100 years or the industrial revolution. Is that all? The fractional equivalent of 80 ppm is 8/100,000ths of 1%
    I tried to graph that. The best graph that I could make was 12 marks per inch. In order to graph this I would have to have a graph 694 feet long and the increase would represent 3/4 inch on that graph. Can we say TRACE AMOUNT?

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

  4. Pingback: Liar, Liar – Pants on Fire ~~~ | JustMEinT's General Blog

  5. Douglas says:

    Here’s another thing:

    For such an infinitesimally small percent of atmosphere, Co2 not only doesn’t stay in the atmosphere. It dissolves in water including in its gas phase, in the atmosphere, and is thus washed to earth to do its tremendous work fertilising soil, making tissue – plants to brains, dolomites and more. It can never build up in the atmosphere. This wonderful gas the politicians wish to eradicate. Madmen. They truly are madmen.

  6. Dave Leaton says:

    Oh, come on, John. You posted the exact same comment a week ago on another post. That comment received a response. Am I to understand that you have a closed mind? That you’re only interested in one-way communication?

    Ozone has a specific gravity of 1.612, and yet there it is in the stratosphere. You claim that there is no CO2 in the stratosphere, because it is too heavy to rise. How then do you explain a study such as this and hundreds more like it, that have nothing to do with global warming. Are these researchers in on the hoax? Have they too been given “lies” to work with? Come now, will you discuss this issue in good faith?

    JustMeinT, I must ask the same question of you. You post a summary interpretation of a summary interpretation without ever questioning the study. Note, for example, that in the last thirty years, there have been two similar “halts” to the warming. Note also that the choice of 1998 is not random. It happens to be the warmest year on record, after 2010 and 2005. Use 1997 as a starting point: everything changes. Indeed, look at the strong warming trend between 2000 and 2010.

    That having been said, there has been a slow-down in the rate of warming in the last decade, and the research is certainly correct to point out that solar activity has been on a down cycle and that Chinese industry has been gearing up. You also miss representing the point that several well-understood cooling factors have been in operation, yet global temps have only flattened (slightly warmed actually–and probably significantly warmed if the Arctic was included in any of the major global temp records). Should they not have cooled?

    Both your posts and John’s comments suggest a very deep misunderstanding of the theory (yes, it’s a theory, like everything else) of AGW. How do you think it is supposed to work? Or are you even interested in understanding the basics of that which you attack with such charged language?

  7. Dave Leaton says:

    Ok, we’ll trade links. I read your piece (response below). Now you read the article I link to here.

    The reaction to the taken-out-of-context sentence by Trenberth is interesting, to say the least. Even without the context of the rest of the email, the response has been odd. Consider what he says: “it’s a travesty . . .” If he knew that there was no warming, because he and others had faked the data (as doubters claim), why would he call the missing heat a “travesty”? If he couldn’t account for the heat and suspected he might have made a mistake, why would he use the word “travesty”? Indeed, in what situations would he possibly use the word “travesty”? There are only two (unless you can come up with more). If he suddenly had doubts about the theory of AGW, he might then throw away everything and call a critical missing element a travesty. However, we know that Trenberth has not thrown away the theory–indeed, far from it. The other possibility is that Trenberth is lamenting the fact that for all of our technical prowess, we don’t yet have the observational reach to look into the likely sink for the missing heat (the deep ocean), and that is a travesty. For Trenberth, “missing” does not mean “not there”; rather, it means “not yet found.” Having spent a considerable amount of time and energy studying Earth’s energy budget, he knows that what is coming in (solar energy) does not equal what is going out (top-of-atmosphere radiation), and the deficit has been growing.

    You also mention the Phil Jones debacle. Good grief. Have you even read the interview in question, or are your mindlessly repeating this second-hand, as someone’s tool? The man makes the mistake of being precise in public. What a huge mistake. Integrity is like blood in the water for sensationalist sharks. Do you know what statistical significance is? You probably do by now. If not, here’s the excerpt from the interview:

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    Not having statistical significance, in this case, does not mean “not warming.” Indeed, we now have statistically significant warming since 1995. 2010 was, in fact, the hottest year in recorded history (or tied for it, if you use the UAH data).

    Finally, your post at the link provided is sorely lacking in evidence. You claim fraud and deceit. Show it. Show the evidence. Argue for yourself. You claim “gravy train.” This is a bitter joke among scientists. Tell me how much money has been spent on fighting the idea of global warming. How much has big oil spent? How much have economic right wing think tanks spent? How much of that money has been spent on actual science and how much on rhetoric aimed at politicians and voters? What we have on one side is words, and what we have on the other side is physics. Physics is winning.

Comments are closed.