From: "Gary Britt" 

But the rise in temperature STOPPED in 1998 according to this:

Gary  
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large
and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is
neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of
the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the
years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was
actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly
from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of
temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and
SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say
"how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet
in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long
period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a
dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the
curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between
1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation,
and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that
human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide
is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature
changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent
scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when
the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train
of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such
short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the
public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and
magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters
and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such
alarmist article is larded with words such as "if",
"might", "could", "probably",
"perhaps", "expected", "projected" or
"modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of
scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of
the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the
public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not
to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather,
they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and
senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be,
cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in
Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now
infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the
20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and
co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the
climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian
statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be
deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from
those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the
so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against
speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on
contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of
public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press
releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the
prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for
their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory
words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir
David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end
of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron]
Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that
climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop
Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science,
has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of
global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God
unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of
influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic,
fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for
the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it
was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year
cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the
pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last
three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were
as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the
average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to
be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time,
partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms
and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We
are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last
10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90
per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and
generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is
that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do
infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century
phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it
draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and
the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the
depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science
reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as
acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has
proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to
join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development
of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least,
some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency
and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body,
designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership
receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

ƒ?› Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland,
engaged in paleoclimate research




"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:4462055e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Yes with that much of a rise, the issue is adaptation and how fast the
>> change occurs.
>
> We're talking *fast* geologically wise right now...
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:446131e6$4{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>> news:446092a2{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>> >When the temperature goes up, life flourishes.
>>>
>>> Not with that much of a raise.
>>
>> Yes with that much of a rise, the issue is adaptation and how fast the
>> change occurs.
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5