OK, so my art is a bit tongue in cheek. But it does fit the disaster theme of the topic.
This op-ed piece in the Herald Sun is interesting, because it touches on many of the points covered here on WUWT. This is the first time I’ve seen all these collected in one article in a major newspaper. Andrew Bolt routinely uses material from WUWT, and this is the first time I’ve been able to reciprocate. There are some truly unique points raised by Bolt that are indigenous to Australia that we haven’t discussed here, but they are valid for discussion nonetheless. In cases where we have covered a point on WUWT, I’ve made a footnote link [in brackets] – Anthony
From Andrew Bolt, The Herald Sun
Global Warming Alarmists Out in the Cold
April 29, 2009 12:00am
IT’S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
Doubt it? Then here’s a test.
Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your “proofs” are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming.And if your “proofs” indeed turn out to be false, don’t get angry with me.
Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?
So let’s see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.
MYTH 1
THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week “temperatures have dropped” since – “both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites”. In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out a quarter of the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man’s rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that’s all theory. The question I’ve asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?
[ Ian Plimer, Temperature trends]
MYTH 2
THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again.
The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn’t had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.
[Antarctic Ice Growth, Arctic Ice Recovery ]
MYTH 3
WE’VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we’ve had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by “global warming”, whether man-made or not.
As the university’s press release says: “The causes of southeastern Australia’s longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
“A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole – a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water – dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia.”
MYTH 4
OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged “record” temperature Melbourne set in January – 46.4 degrees – was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here’s another curious thing: Despite all this warming we’re alleged to have caused, Victoria’s highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia’s hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW’s high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What’s more, not one of the world’s seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe’s high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.
MYTH 5
THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.
Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: “There has been a very slight cooling . . .”
MYTH 6
THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.
That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.
But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.
Venice is still above water.
[Sea Level in the Maldives, Sea Level satellite data]
MYTH 7
CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE
Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.
His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man’s gases: “Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.”
[Ryan Maue and Hurricane energy, Hurricane landfall trends]
MYTH 8
THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING
Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white.
But he then had to admit it had made a “surprising” recovery.
Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
But he later admitted this bleaching had “minimal impact”. Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef.
But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a “spectacular recovery”, with “abundant corals re-established in a single year”. The reef is blooming.
MYTH 9
OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER
Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018.
Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria’s snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.
[New low temp record at Australian ski resort this year]
MYTH 10
TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE
Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?
And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can’t actually see.
Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith – bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.
Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.
Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
[Going down – death rates due to extreme weather events]
So stop this crazy panic.
First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it?
Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn’t been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.
Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof — the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don’t you think?

Smokey above – agreed but I think there is a step before it: Prove that an invariant climate is the norm?
Also FWIW I’d rather see the money go to building a more level global playing field in terms of wellbeing etc etc but being done without the smoke and mirrors of carbon trading.
Slowtofollow,
If you think that any money collected by any government on the face of this earth will ever go toward enhanced wellbeing of anyone except those collecting those funds… I have some property in Tennessee that will soon be ocean front that I would like you to take a look at….
The Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
has a colorful graph that shows their medium earth temperature; after a maximum anomaly in 1998 of +0.52 deg C, we have in the new century 2002: 0.46
2004: 0.43
2006: 0.42
2008: 0.32
All this is of course only of interest when one compares it to ICPP or the hockey stick; but it does make their curves look a wee bit silly.
I know Thermageddon is just around the corner when:
1.) Lake Superior freezes over and it was weather in 1913 and Global Warming in 2009.
2.) A hearing is held in Congress over the climate, the guest speaker is treated like a God, then the Spring turns immediately back into winter.
3.) Miss one drop of rain in a season and emergency drought measures are slapped into place faster than an F18 with afterburners on.
Packing my trunks 🙂
Hahaha… My age makes me a cynic… you must be young to still have so much trust in government…
Thanks,
Mike
“hope” is the word!…. how do we fix a price? on the current or projected?? Cheers 🙂
Global warming is dead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
Alexej Buergin (18:20:43) :
Global warming is dead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
Yes Alexej, but it’s spirit is stil alive.
These kind of articles makes me throw up and it is one of the reasons I have stopped reading the NYT a long time ago.
I won’t shed a tear if they go belly up due to a lack of readers.
Smokey:
It is the job of people proposing a hypothesis to convince reasonable people who are capable of being convinced. That is what has happened for AGW, as evidenced by the fact that a quite strong consensus exists in the scientific community by a number of measures (e.g., studies of the statistics of the papers that appear in the peer-reviewed literature, statements of the IPCC and concurring statements by major scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in the other G8+5 nations, etc.)
It is not the job to convince everybody. And, in fact there is a theory in biology (whose name one seems not to be allowed to mention on this Board) that is very well-accepted by the scientific community but for which a consider number of “skeptics” remain outside of the scientific community (and even a few in the scientific community), thus illustrating that such “skepticism” has little to do with scientific merit and much to do with what happens when scientific theories conflict with strongly-held beliefs or philosophies.
The fact that you are willing to believe almost anything that comes along that claims to disprove AGW, no matter how crazy, shows me that you certainly fall into the category of people who are unconvinceable. I cannot do the impossible and it is silly for me to even try. I am content with pointing out the flaws in your arguments for others (hopefully more convinceable than you) to see.
Smokey: “So far, the planet itself is proving the [snip] flat wrong: as CO2 steadily rises, the planet’s temperature has steadily fallen.”
Over what time period? The long-term trend for temperature is upwards:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
As the graph shows, temperatures fluctuate over the short term, even while they are increasing over the long term. So to claim that “as CO2 steadily rises, the planet’s temperature has steadily fallen” is meaningless unless it is placed within the correct context.
The correct context is climate change, and when short-term fluctuations are placed within that context, they can be seen as irrelevant noise – much like your prose.
Joel,
I think that most people here believe there has been some warming. The thing is… we don’t believe that the American way of life must be brought to a dead halt because of all the unproven hypotheses of impending doom.
If you would say that cap and trade or carbon taxes are counterproductive and will only enrich the elite of government , science and rentseekers, you would have a bosom buddy in Smokey “The Hammer”, and many others. You see, for the IPCC, it’s really not about the details of the science, it’s about the control. Most people here realize that, and I have a feeling that you know it too…
Thanks for listening,
Mike
JS:
More psychological projection on your part. YOU have to prove your hypothesis; all that skeptics need to do is question it: click.
I have strongly held beliefs like many people. Including you. But not about AGW, which is still just a GCM wet dream lacking empirical evidence. The planet is laughing at the AGW conjecture.
You may believe fervently that there is a black cat in a dark room. Skeptics say “show me.” If you turn on the lights and we see a black cat, you’ve proven your hypothesis. But so far, alarmists have been unwilling or unable to turn on the lights. I don’t accept a black cat based on your belief system — which is all you have. There’s only real world evidence of declining global temperatures as CO2 rises.
I merely point out that credible real world evidence for AGW is missing. Where is it? Alarmists obviously believe in CO2=AGW — but they are unable to provide solid, falsifiable evidence to support their pet hypothesis.
You have no convincing real world evidence, so you fall back on “consensus” again. As we all know, that argument fails.
No one has been able to falsify the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. That is the test of your failed hypothesis; it must explain reality better than what it trying to replace. It fails.
I understand that you’re really trying hard to turn the argument around. I can’t blame you, it must be tough with the albatross of CO2=AGW around your neck. But you put it there, we didn’t.
Brendan H (19:18:37),
Have you been out of town or something? That chart has been discussed here frequently. Your GISS chart is after “adjustment.” And GISS is pretty uncooperative when people start asking questions about its data and methodologies.
Anyway, that chart is a piece of Dan Rather-style fiction: click
This really does smack of double speak. And they are having classes in it?
cite>The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”cite<
Joel Shore (19:01:35) :
“And, in fact there is a theory in biology (whose name one seems not to be allowed to mention on this Board) that is very well-accepted by the scientific community but for which a consider number of “skeptics” remain outside of the scientific community (and even a few in the scientific community), thus illustrating that such “skepticism” has little to do with scientific merit and much to do with what happens when scientific theories conflict with strongly-held beliefs or philosophies.”
——————–
I’ll bite.
WTF are you talking about here ??
scary but true..thanks for posting. 🙂
“as CO2 steadily rises, the planet’s temperature has steadily fallen”
As you’ve been told quite some number of times now, this is not true.
You keep on repeated the same falsehoods time and time again, unable to heed the actual data and treat it sensibly. You are not understanding even the concept of climate change, which can’t be measured over a decade unless it’s happening extremely rapidly. How many graphs have you dug up now of temperatures since 1998, or 2002, or whatever date in the last ten years? They are all meaningless.
But as I’ve said before, if you like meaningless graphs, then start your data in March 2008. Please explain why you feel that all climate graphs should start in 2002, and not March 2008.
Smokey: “Anyway, that chart is a piece of Dan Rather-style fiction: click”
Well, I don’t get out much, but “that chart” you link to is not the same one as I linked to: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Yours is for the US. Mine is for the globe. And it’s the globe we are talking about when we discuss climate change.
So that’s two strikes now: 1) Confusing the short with the long term; 2) Confusing the local with the global. Try to avoid a hat-trick.
Brendan H
The data your curve represents i mostly showing adjustments.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/30/ushcn_corrections.gif
The above graph is a few years old and “nobody” knows how it would look in a up to date version. We just know, that even in the later year GISS temp data still have a more AGW-friendly trend than any other temp graph.
Its really essential that you understand that your graph is not temperature, but just human corrections, manly.
These adjustments have not been fully peer reviewet (if thats important to you) or even made fully puplic. That also means, that every “scientific” paper or model made based on data like this cannot be used for anything much. This include papers(models that predict CO2 warming, since otherwise the authors cant make things add up. No wonder!
See a compare of recent years temperature fall:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/feb.gif
The following graph is not conclusive but illustrates that there are uncertainties in just using the GISS-temperature-adjustment graph of yours:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/gissdivergence.gif
Bon apetit.
.
Throughout history cold periods have been the worst times for humanity, warm ones have been better for human prosperity.
The CNN Meteorologist saying that the Man-Made Climate Change theory is “arrogant” is a great advancement in the cause of educating the masses with the truth. Hopefully more of the MSM will start speaking out. The word is spreading, tell all your friends and family, and tell them to do the same.
Gore and his Man-Bear-Pig. The politicians on board with this scam must be simply out of their minds. For one thing, there’s plenty of oil and NG, we just need to drill for it and refine it. Also expand and improve nuclear, wind, hydro, solar and hemp fuel.
Can’t anybody talk some sense into Obama, Gore, McCain, Brown and Merkel about how temperatures rise first, and THEN carbon-dioxide levels rise.
Carbon-dioxide doesn’t cause warming, sun activity does, warming causes CO2 levels to rise.
The Laws proposed like taxing Cows for flatulence are among the stupidest, but ALL the laws proposed will totally destroy the world economy and starve 100’s of millions of people worldwide, all without changing the weather one bit. And it will take probably 100 years to repeal these insane laws. STOP the insanity! TELL EVERYONE!
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
humans’ breath is poison
just one child hurts the world
worse than a jet engine
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
don’t research all theories
put an end to all debate
silence all your critics
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
spread hysteria
wildly exaggerate
scare little kids not ready
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
keep people all worked up
about global warming
despite inconvenient facts
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
.
🙂
.
Frank Lasner: “We just know, that even in the later year GISS temp data still have a more AGW-friendly trend than any other temp graph.”
According to this comparison, the long-term trend for GISS is similar to the trend shown by other agencies.
http://atmoz.org/img/climate_metrics.png
“See a compare of recent years temperature fall:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/feb.gif”
As a matter of interest, why does this graph begin in 2002?
MikeN (08:11:57) :
I’ve no doubt it has warmed but it’s the reason for that warming that we may differ. It’s obvious to me that temperatures have increased as we emerged from the little ice age.
Just to show you what it was like then, you’ve heard that the River Thames use to freeze? There were a number of paintings from that period
http://www.artfund.org/artwork/1021/enlarged/1/the-frozen-thames-looking-eastwards
Note the thickness of the ICE, a picture by an artist called Abraham Hondius signed 1677. Quite thick even for the Catlin team.
http://www.artfund.org/artwork/1021/the-frozen-thames-looking-eastwards
I’ve seen other pictures with compression slabs which appeared to be 3M high unfortunatley can’t find them on the net
Eve: can you please tell me where you see a 0.7 celsius decrease in temperatures in the data you sent?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12
The linear regression is positive, and over the 2002-2009 period that was mentioned, the trend is -0.2…
But now that I take a look at the text above… Miracle! The “half of the warming” suddenly became “quarter of the warming”. Must be the new skeptic way of playing with words…
RW, Brendan H and Joel Shore.
Why don’t you answer my previous question?
Having difficulties?
“RW (10:29:46) :
“For some bizarre reason you keep on claiming there’s no evidence that CO2 could affect climate. Again, I’ve explained this to you, and while you cannot and do not argue, you simply refuse to accept it. Again, flat-earthism. CO2 is a strong infrared absorber (see eg. Tyndall, 1868). Strong infrared absorbers cause the greenhouse effect. Increasing the concentration of strong infrared absorbers causes temperatures to rise, inevitably.”
“Do you ever read scientific papers?”
Do you ever think for yourself?
Why do you and other people posting here, use this utterly simplistic statement of physics to justify AGW on the planet Earth?
I can also give a simplistic example of physics. Put the end of a bar of steel in a bowl of hot water and measure how long it takes the other end to warm up. Do the same with a bar of wood, lead, iron etc. You will soon see they all warm eventually but at different rates and you can draw conclusions that confirm a known law of physics.
Now put an inanimate cellular based object in the bowl and voila the same effect.
Now put your feet in the bowl and wait for your head to warm up. OOPS! What has gone wrong with the physics?
Nothing of course. However this physical law is now operating in a dynamic environment where the heat may trigger other processes within the object/system.
Unless you can confirm that you have an excellent understanding of all the possible significant connected processes within the Earths climate system (Sun, oceanic circulation, clouds, biomass response, albedo etc etc etc) and how changes in one might drive changes in others then how can you possibly predict the future?
If anyone says that they have settled the science because they have such an understanding I would call them naive, a liar or deluded.
Which are you?”
That bit of physics together with GCMs that have been retrofitted to match the data from 1975 to 2000 are all that alarmists have got to ‘prove’ their hypothesis.
But of course the global temperature record in the 20th century is only in accord with the GCMs and AGW hypothesis for 25% of the time (1975 – 2000) it is in discord for 65% of the time (1910 -1975).
The 21st century is also not looking good for the hypothesis and the models so far.
To close the disconnect between the hypothesis and models from 1940 – 1970 a hypothesis based on aerosol production is put forward to stitch it together.
However, nobody has been able to show a direct and consistent connection between aerosols and global temperatures. For instance areas with a high production of aerosols show a lower cooling trend in the period 1940 -1970 than other areas.
Greenland ice cores show that sulfat aerosols increased stongly from 1910 to 1940 a period of significant warming indeed the rate of warming was almost the same as the warming rate from 1975 to 2000. So how does all that work then?
What sort of hand waving can you come uo with to explain the 1910 – 1940 model discord?
If the aerosol suggestion had been proven I am sure we would have heard about it by now. I am sure, that you realise that you, logically, cannot prove one unproven thing by using another unproven thing. It just doesn’t compute. So if you can stitch these two hypothesis together with some level of proof then you should publish and make a name for yourself.
Until the obvious discord between the models and observed data in the 20th and 21st century can be closed by proven hypothesis then clearly noone can say that the science is anyway settled.
What makes more sense is the theory that the Earths climate is naturally variable and that we have not been round long enough yet to have anything like a complete understanding of all the factors involved.
Just to make it easy for you I repeat my earlier question.
“Unless you can confirm that you have an excellent understanding of all the possible significant connected processes within the Earths climate system (Sun, oceanic circulation, clouds, biomass response, albedo etc etc etc) and how changes in one might drive changes in others then how can you possibly predict the future?
If anyone says that they have settled the science because they have such an understanding I would call them naive, a liar or deluded.
Which are you?”
Alan