2010 and 2012 there was no rise in mean global temperature. The
value for 2010 was almost exactly the same as for 2003 and 2005.
The value for 2011 was lower than almost every year this century.
There has been absolutely no 'global warming' 2002-2011.
this period of no warming, atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued
its steady rise. So there is no correlation with temperature whatever.
Has global warming come
to a halt?
To listen to the media,
politicians, and opinion among the general public you would think
'global warming' was proceeding apace.
But look at the data. (
2) 1998 was the world's warmest year since records began in
1850, and marks the peak in a period of warming which has been
going on since 1980. Every year since then, mean global temperatures
have been 0.25-0.45 C above the long-term mean.
But suppose for a moment
that 1998 was the first year for which data were available. What
would you see (above)?
a rise, although not to the 1998 level
a period of near-constant temperatures
a fall, every year for 3 years in a row.
Whilst the changes are
so small that we cannot be confident (statistically) that cooling
has taken place, there has certainly not been any further global
the data yourself
my word for it. Nor the word of any other 'authority'. You can
check out the original data, from the CRU
site. You really can! Select CRUTEM3, then GL (=global mean),
and take the last column, the annual mean values. Anyone who can
draw a graph can see the trend for any chosen period. Teachers,
get your class to do it. Then they will have found out for themselves,
and not be dependent on the pronouncement of some supposedly 'eminent'
don't like taking anyone else's word for scientific matters, so
you can check their indempently compiled data on the NOAA
What about the benefits
of climatic change?
The benefits? Have you heard
about these? No, because it would spoil the prevailing party line
to mention them.
From a British-oriented
point of view, there are obvious benefits of warmer temperature.
No-one wants a repeat of the bitterly cold winters common in the
nineteenth century, and occurring sporadically since. The lower
fuel costs of milder winters are a considerable saving. Likewise,
the public would like hot summers, for leisure and sport.
But more widely, what about
drought and heatwaves (or is it storms and floods?). From the
broadest viewpoint, there is no reason why changes in climate
should not bring about as many benefits as losses. It is, indeed,
grudgingly admitted that crop growth in the cooler temperate zone
might benefit from higher temperatures, and in the North American
Great Plains there is evidence of this. In some regions, even
the supposedly 'desertified' sahel zone of Africa, the drought
constraint to plant growth has been reduced. (Source)
in the global rate of plant growth
There is another
striking effect. Two quite independent studies, one covering 1982-1989
and the other 1981-2003, have shown increases in global net primary
production (the rate of plant growth) of 6% and 3.8% respectively.
This increase is found in both hemispheres and in all continents.
It covers in areas of forest, grasslands, dry zones, and crops.
For this to be so widespread and continuous, the increase in atmospheric
carbon dioxide is the most likely reason. (Source)
There is a natural
checking mechanism here. Plants take up carbon dioxide and give
out oxygen, so in the long run, the higher plant growth will extract
more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
You are being
The present attitude
of politicians, the media, and thus necessarily most of the general
public is uncomfortably reminiscent of the extremes of China's 'cultural
revolution': go against the prevailing opinion, and you invite derision,
disparagement or even insult. No politician dares breathe a word
against the 'party line'. Only rarely does a balanced viewed get
So what should
First, by all
means develop more efficient energy use. Fuel-saving measures, and
alternative means of generating electric power, are much to be desired.
This is not primarily to reduce carbon emissions, which is always
given as the reason, but to conserve the world's limited reserves
of fossil fuels. At least we are doing the right thing, if for the
adapt. We cannot stop the climate changing, and it is a gross
waste of public money to suppose we can. Adapt to changes as they
become apparent. Some will be adverse, others beneficial. Adaptive
investment is a far more efficient way of dealing with the inevitable
basic truth on our previous page:
climate has always changed;
will go on changing;
and nothing that politicians can do will stop it."
We disagree because of our differing attitudes, viewpoints, prejudices...Checking
population increase will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
than any other measure...If
governments and people focus efforts on 'controlling climate change'
we are doomed to failure. [See quote above]...So harness approaches
to climate change with efforts to control other world problems,
such as poverty and hunger.
But read the book yourself.
Notice how Hulme, from a starting point in climatology, and Young,
starting from soils and land resources, arrive at the same point:
the millennium goals, to reduce hunger, poverty, and environmental
degradation, cannot be achieved without checking population increase.