Report: No Statistical Global Warming In 17 Years

As the new Marcott paper is still being hyped by the media, but being destroyed by actual scientists digging into the paper (including Marcott), we learn some interesting information

(GWPF) London,  15 March: A new report written by Dr David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.

After reviewing the scientific literature the report concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.

“The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.

What this report is not saying is that the Earth is not currently in a warm period. As part of the natural cycle during the Holocene, it gets cool, it gets warm, it gets cool, it gets warm, and during the cool and warm long term periods there will be shorter warm and cool periods.

Right now, the Earth is in an elevated warm period during this extended warm period (which started in the mid-1800′s as the Little Ice Age came to an end) which is still cooler than during the previous warm periods (Medieval and Roman warm periods), with a flatlined temperature gradient.

What the report is saying is that if CO2 was the main forcing agent, global temperatures should be rising. They aren’t.

“If the standstill continues for a few more years it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime,” said the report’s author, Dr David Whitehouse.

This doesn’t mean that we won’t see more warming during this climate period which is called….hey, why do we have no name for it yet? I propose calling it the “things are so awesome that hysterics have time to whine about the weather instead of having to bust their humps in the mud from sun-up to bed-time” period. It’s a bit long, granted.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

4 Comments

Comment by john
2013-03-16 10:16:17

The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Anyone care to take a quick look as to who/what they are??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding
Funding
According to a press release on the organization’s website, GWPF “is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”[4] Annual membership contributions are “a minimum of £100″.[24]
Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding “from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves.”[17]
In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[11] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, commented that “We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners.”[11]
These people are only skeptical of what they don’t want to be true.
NOAA says that 2012 was the warmest year EVAH in the continental USA
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16413805-noaa-2012-was-warmest-year-ever-for-us-second-most-extreme?lite
Teach says “But but it snowed a lot someplace……”

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-03-16 20:44:51

So, you’re unable to refute the study.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-03-16 23:35:32

oh no,.. not a fringe group pushing a policy that its members are paying it to push? no.

wonder what to do?!?!?!

But, instead of killing the messenger, what about the message john?

John, would you rather be living during the last ice age? Or would you rather be living during the Maunder Minimum?

Please tell us how our lives would be better during those times?

 
Comment by Otter
2013-03-17 05:12:43

John has never met an outright LIE he couldn’t use.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8972 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE