Archives

Categories

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

This nonsense claim was made on the basis of a claimed MET release by David Rose in the Daily Mail and picked up by the usual local idiot blogs –  Catallaxy and, of course, Andrew Bolt.

This is the official MET rebuttal. Carbon Brief provides a complete rebuttal. I haven’t noticed a retraction at either of the local sites I mention.

These types of denialist distortions get repeated every few months.  It is important to point out that they are distortions every time they occur.

Meanwhile Alan Jones has been ordered to do a course on truth-telling. Definitely a step forward. (1623)

15 comments to Global warming stopped 16 years ago

  • JB Cairns

    such stories as this are simply fed to simple people who have no understnding of basic statisitcs. no wonder Catallaxy gobbled it up.

    It was put up by Steve Kates whose middle name is INACCURACY. The only question is whether he is simply mad as he seems or fiendishly goebbelsish like Davidson.

  • [...] Harry Clarke is very annoyed. Again. It seems the Met Office have provided a rebuttal to the Daily Mail piece that Steve linked to a few days ago showing no global warming over the past 16 years. I haven’t noticed a retraction at either of the local sites I mention. [...]

  • I have mentioned this over at that Catallaxy thread (even though I doubt few there will read it), so I’ll link to it here as well. John Neilsen-Gammon has a post just out in which he looks at those graphs which attempt to disprove AGW by showing increases in CO2 as against the temperature record of the last decade or so. He goes on to show how it should properly be graphed (without any “tricks”), and that his (approximate) calculations show that the temperature record is well within the expected range:

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/

  • Jim Rose

    why do you want Jones to be more credible? now that he has fact checkers, he is less likely to shoot himself in the foot. His agenda will not change, just the mix of supporting facts.

  • MACK1

    If you look at the data, the Met is playing fast and loose with the truth. Here’s an accurate explanation by someone who understands the numbers – read the five dot points at the bottom:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/rose-v-met-office/

    PS “idiot blogs” and “denialist distortions” are unprofessional terms and you should avoid them if you want to be taken seriously.

  • JB Cairns

    Have you even read what you linked?

  • conrad

    I think you’re assuming something there (like ability to read).

  • Michael James

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Ministry of Truth, as in George Orwell’s 1984. Then we could enforce truth-telling with the threat of real sanctions (like brainwashing in Communist-style re-education camps), not these soft ‘courses’ that people may not take seriously. Of course, if the truth changes everyone can be re-educated. No problem.

  • hc

    I am unsure Michael what else can be done if a public figure like Jones makes literally false claims. These are not claims that depend on a theory – they relate to issues of fact – the contribution of Australia to global emissions. Do you think Holocaust Deniers should have freedom of speech?

  • JB Cairns

    actually I believe they should have the freedom to deny the holocaust.

    if society is sick enough to believe such crap then they deserve all the consequences of that!

  • Michael James

    Harry, yes, I do think that holocaust deniers should have free speech. That’s because I believe in free speech. So when people publicly make literally false claims, you use your freedom of speech to rebut them. If you believe in free speech, you must defend the right to make literally false claims.

    All this is set out admirably in J S Mill’s On Liberty. He also points out that if truth can never be challenged by error it slides into dogma and gradually degenerates into untruth. Karl Popper similarly argued that as ‘truth’ is always provisional (always in principle refutable by new evidence) absolute freedom of speech is a necessary condition for the growth of knowledge.

    Of course, you don’t have to believe in free speech. But then it’s a matter of power who gets to speak. Good luck.

  • hc

    Certainly the factual inaccuracies in Jones remarks were widely reported. They were simple deceit that did not require much analysis to uncover. Yet he declined to revise his statements until forced to fess up.

    It is difficult to directly refute Jones’ remarks on his radio show because he controls the mike. Quadrant too has systematically spread lies on climate change but refused to allow rebuttals.

    It already is an issue of power as to who gets to speak.

    I don’t believe in unqualified free speech – the freedom to shout fire in a crowded movie theatre for example – and I don’t favour giving equal weight in legitimacy to the views of holocaust deniers or those who spread lies about climate. And this was not a theoretical issue over the extent to which people are driving climate but a factually incorrect claim about the contribution of Australia to climate emissions.

  • Jim Rose

    educated people were allowed to deny the Moscow show trials, the great famines and gulags and were not expelled from the educated elite?

    Look at “Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society” and “The end of commitment: intellectuals, revolutionaries, and political morality” by Paul Hollander

    these books are about how famous cultural and religious leaders from the West visited the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other communist countries, and told the most appalling lies to flatter their hosts and express their contempt for Western society.

    In spite of massive evidence, these political pilgrims never waver in their loyalty to failed, left-wing ideals. Isn’t one of these in the Senate?

    Those that finally rejected genocidal utopianism showed much courage as it involved a complete break with most old friends and their ejection from a socio-political subculture.

  • Jim Rose

    see http://www.paulbogdanor.com/deniers.html for a hall of shame.

    Orwell identified the renegade liberal in his proposed preface of ‘Animal Farm’. Renegade liberals are those who glorify communist experiments and disdain middle-class life despite their own pleasant bourgeois circumstances.

    Renegade liberals search for outlaws states and revolutionary movements to support, who, of course, would ship these liberals straight to the camps as soon as they won power.

    Revolutionary excesses of new regimes are excused as the misadventures of ‘liberals in a hurry’ who understandably lost patience with the slow pace of democratic reform.

    The environmental movement will have to learn to sell its messages to voters through thick and thin, and not just be the good times party. When parties are in line with the will of the people, they win through.

    The Labor parties formed out of nothing 100 years ago and quickly won many seats and not long after they formed governments in many countries.

    The green parties also first formed in someone’s living room. A small group of thoughtful and dedicated citizens believed they could change the world by contesting elections under their own flag. They were not wrong.

    The greatness of democracy is a few people can indeed band together to change their world by persuading more and more to join their cause.

  • [...] I am a bit obsessed with this issue (and have addressed the issue recently here and in 2008 here) but the lie that it did stop still gets repeatedly cited as an “inconvenient [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>