good friend Tim sent me this delicious tidbit about the end of global
warming. In the Telegraph's opinion section Bob Carter pokes big holes in
the ozone layer the left's pet panic.
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?
Carter explains exactly how it’s possible by outlining the basic flaws in the structure of the scientific/political symbiosis that characterizes the world of “science” in these early days of the twenty-first century. I hate these flaws exactly as much—and for exactly the same reasons— that I love science. There are things that science can't explain and, until recently, scientists were not afraid to admit it. But now that science has become a religion—take "global warming" and evolution as just two examples of faith-based science—scientists are loath to eschew declarations of their own omniscience. Add to this mix the influence of government, industry, and ideological money all looking for particular, self-affirming, results rather than real science, and you have a situation where true science can't find enough air to breath. Science will, nay is, slowly suffocating but, though its credibility is almost totally ruined, I hope it is not moribund.