Sceptic-supported research proves global warming

Posted by jamess — 21 October 2011 at 12:04pm - Comments

Big news today for the planet – a huge research project triggered by climate sceptic claims of 'dodgy data' has underlined a key truth: our planet is warming dangerously fast – by a whole degree in the last 60 years.

Significantly, the study was part-funded by the Koch Brothers, the darkest of corporate fossil fuel lobbyists, while some of the heavies in the climate sceptic world lent their support to the research, launched in the wake of the so-called 'climategate' affair.

The billionaire Kochs are some of the most notorious climate sceptics out there and have piled stacks of money into astroturfing campaigns in the US to try and scupper green laws (read the Koch report by our colleagues in the US). That's why today's report is so important – the truth has been confirmed in research part-funded by climate sceptics.

One of the main sceptic claims that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was investigating is the claim that weather stations near cities are skewing the data in existing studies, since urban areas are warmer than surrounding areas.

However that theory was rubbished after the research group analysed 40,000 weather stations around the world and concluded that the 'Urban Heat Island' effect on global temperatures was "nearly negligible" or "spurious".

The results of the research project plot a chart of global temperature rise that matches that of the previous scientific efforts – from NASA to the UK Met Office.

So any way you look at this, it's big news.

All of those people – from energy tycoons to politicians, journalists to bloggers – who prefer to ignore the glaring signs of climate change and hide behind flimsy theories have got nowhere else to go.

Climate change is real and our planet is warming dangerously fast. Today even the sceptic-supported research is saying so. 

I can't wait to hear them "explain" this one away.

Also, the Koch brothers take a little bashing in "Sarah Palin, You Betcha!" a documentary I saw at the London Film Festival last week. It seems cc denial is only one murky area in which they are involved.

One final thing to add... it's great to read this article on the Greenpeace site, but the effect will be far greater if it gets published by non-greenies. I'll keep my eyes open to see who picks it up.



We know that criticisms of the UN’s IPCC, intensified when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit showed that leading scientists manipulated data to “hide the decline” in temperatures and suppressed legitimate scientific arguments in peer-reviewed journals.

And that this scandal led the Royal Society to admitted in 2010 that the science was infused with uncertainties and that, “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future…”

The recent report from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project BEST has confirmed what we already knew that there has a very modest warming which has be recorded over the last 150 years. We are today warmer than the Little Ice Age, warmer than the Victorian Era, indeed warmer than the 1970s. The proper question is, of course, why? The BEST project have no conclusions about this.

There was however an interesting comment by Nigel Calder in the New Scientist on the BEST project, which confirms Climategate. 

Nigel Calder’s commented in the New Scientist:

“What do they mean by ‘global warming is real’? The graph of global land temperature changes associated with BEST’s announcement neatly confirms by their independent method that the warming stopped about 15 years ago. The Sun’s recent laziness has apparently cancelled any effect of ever-increasing man-made greenhouse gases.”

The interviewer commented:

“I take your point about the reduced warming trend over the last 15 years, but this study is focused on the long-term warming trend which covers a century. How do you account for this long-term warming trend?”

Calder replied:

“Increased activity of the Sun, of course, from 1950 to the early 1990s as signalled most strikingly by the decline in ionizing cosmic rays at the Earth’s surface...” 

The most significant finding of the BEST project didn’t make the headlines the fact that the root causes of global warming are poorly understood. 

The BEST researchers found a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the: “human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

Clearly we can strongly argue the science is far from settled for policymaking.



In fact Greenpeace the case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in this characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play:

  The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polarbearsare thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and isactuallydropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fearsare being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s,droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace."

Morano also, incidentally, has links to all those scientists – Pielke Snr, Lubos Motl, et al – pouring cold water on Muller's ludicrous claims. 

There have also been an increasing number of false claims related to the Himalayan glaciers in the Guardian by George Monbiot, Guardian 27 January 2000:

The Himalayan glaciers are retreating so fast that the rivers may dry up in the summer by 2040. The results, if that happens, will be catastrophic.

Dr Bob Bradnock, geographer,  Letter to the Guardian, 4 February 2000

Sadly, in seeking to make easy points about global warming [Monbiot] has got his "facts" wrong. Glaciers contribute virtually nothing to the flow of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Indus rivers, which depend primarily on monsoon rain and to a much lesser extent on snow melt (not glacier melt).

There has been no long term decline in precipitation in the Himalaya. The idea that the glaciers are retreating so fast that the rivers may dry up by the summer of 2040 displays an embarrassing ignorance of the normal hydrological cycle of all these rivers, whose low flow period is in the winter, and which in summer continue to pour water down from the Himalaya.

George Monbiot, The Guardian, 29 July 2009

India is finally lumbering into action on climate change.

Though this country is likely to be hit harder than almost anywhere else by the climate crash, not least because its food production is largely dependent on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers, which are rapidly retreating, it has almost been a point of pride in India not to respond to the requests of richer nations to limit its emissions.

Scientific American today

A growing number of studies based on satellite data and stream chemistry analyses have found that far less surface water comes from glacier melt than previously assumed. In Peru's Rio Santa, which drains the Cordilleras Blanca mountain range, glacier contribution appears to be between 10 and 20 percent. In the eastern Himalayas, it is less than 5 per cent.


"There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion about it," said Peter Gleick, co-director of the California-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. "

Yes, there certainly has been a lot of "misinformation and confusion".


génial merci copieusement pour tout. votre site internet est tout simplement fort et prodigieux

Follow Greenpeace UK