warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right
about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had
‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures
showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s
temperature since 1997.
vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’
that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.
Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly
admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly
warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could
Last year The Mail on Sunday reported global warming had 'paused' for 16
then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday,
news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’,
which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at
least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43
degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done
for 20 years.
is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts
– which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens
of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now
accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ –
the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which
at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing
warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead,
it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of
its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was
noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming
Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson.
rather than reporting the news objectively, Britain’s Green Establishment
went into denial. Neither The Guardian nor The Independent bothered to report
it in their paper editions, although The Independent did later run an editorial
saying that the new forecast was merely a trivial ‘tweak’. Instead,
they luridly reported on the heatwave and raging bushfires in Australia.
of the curious features of Green journalism is that if it gets unusually
cold, this will be dismissed as mere ‘weather’ of no significance,
while a heatwave or violent storm will be seized on as a warning that catastrophic
climate change is already here.
of focusing on the news that global warming had halted, other newspapers
reported on the heatwave and raging bushfires in Australia
the new forecast was mentioned on the BBC and other websites, experts were
marshalled to reassure apocalypse-hungry readers that the end of the world
was just as nigh as before. A warming hiatus of a mere 20 years, they said,
would all be faintly humorous, if it wasn’t so deadly serious. Back
in 2007, when the Labour Government was preparing what became the Climate
Change Act, far from being neutral, the Met Office made a blatant attempt
to influence political debate.
glossy brochure, it revealed it had a ‘new system’ that could
predict the future, by combining analysis of natural variability with long-term
trends. The system, it warned, showed that by 2014 ‘global average
temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees compared to
2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the
current record hot year, 1998’.
that this showed how the Met Office used ‘world-class science to underpin
policy’. No doubt some of the MPs who voted for the Act, with its
hugely expensive targets to replace fossil energy with ‘renewables’
such as wind, were swayed by it. Barely five years later, it is clear this
forecast was worthless. But the Met Office is unrepentant. ‘Climate
models do predict periods of little or no warming, or even cooling,’
a spokesman told me. Despite the pause, the long-term projection that the
world is likely to warm by about three degrees if the proportion of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere doubles was still on course.
truth: The MoS report last October that was vilifed by the Green Establishment
get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But
behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal
forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic
as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment
tries to stifle dissent.
is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to
anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t
matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical
issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t
anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who
deny the Holocaust.
the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is
insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also
still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that
the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many
supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.
scientists are revisiting some basic assumptions of climate prediction models,
such as the effects of clouds and smoke particles in the atmosphere. They
now think that the claim that the warming effect of CO2 is ‘amplified’
by things such as cloud cover have been seriously exaggerated. In their
view, doubling CO2 may only warm the world by 1.5 degrees or so, giving
us many more decades to develop lower carbon energy sources.
have the Green deniers been so successful in concealing such debates?
it is the web of commercial interests that both fund and are sustained by
Green climate orthodoxy. But it is also their dissenter-trashing machine.
before the revised Met Office forecast broke, US blog site Planet 3.0 awarded
me its Golden Horseshoe award for the ‘most brazenly damaging and
malign bad science of 2013’.’
be clutching it when they burn me at the stake.