Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Bill Jamieson - Chilly months make for cool reflection on the climate theories



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

NOT everyone can be a hot-water bottle. It looks an easy life, stretched out in bed all night. But all that gurgling and burbling and radiating can wear you down. And the indignities! Scalding hot water poured into your bum and then shaken upside down to test you don't leak!
I raise this existential problem because Henry, my hot-water bottle in a fetching Mickey Mouse cover, is now in his 16th consecutive week of service with barely a night off since November.

A problem? It is, for him and me, having been assured b
y the relentless propaganda of the global warming industry that Henry could look forward to early retirement, basking in a sunny spot on top of the wardrobe, with those nights of gurgling and burbling and radiating behind him. Instead, he is working overtime in the front line against ... global cooling.

It is not just in Scotland that the long and earnestly prophesied onset of global warming has failed to materialise this year.

Across America, Europe and Asia, this winter has been a big brrr. Earlier this month, there were fresh falls of snow in Jerusalem. In China, snow and freezing weather brought dislocation and chaos on a massive scale. The worst storms in 50 years cut power supplies and transport links to millions of people.

In North America, eastern districts have been hit by abnormally high levels of snow, well above the 30-year average. Greece has been gripped with winter storms. Athens has been blanketed by 4in to 6in of snow.

South America has experienced one of its coldest winters in decades, with snow in Buenos Aires for the first time since 1918. In South Africa, Johannesburg had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. In Afghanistan, more than 750 people have died in the harshest winter for decades and the heaviest snowfalls in 30 years. Further east, in Indian Kashmir, snow has been falling at an exceptional rate, with the region's main highway to the outside world blocked.

In Western Greenland, temperatures of minus 30C have been recorded. Denmark's Meteorological Institute reports that the ice between Canada and south-west Greenland has reached its greatest extent in 15 years.

And in the Antarctic, where it is currently high summer, ice has increased to its highest level ever recorded at this time of year, some 30 per cent above normal.

January 2008 has seen the largest area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008, just slightly higher than the largest anomaly of January 1984, with February likely to exceed that.

Might it just be that we have got it all wrong? That we are heading, not for a period of global warming, but global cooling?

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director of Canada's National Research Council, reports that solar activity such as sunspots "has been disturbingly quiet". This lack of activity could signal the beginning of what is known as the Maunder Minimum. While solar cycles tend to last about 11 years, the lack of normal activity can trigger the Maunder Minimum – an event that occurs every few centuries, can last as long as a century and which cools the Earth.

Tapping reports no change in the Sun's magnetic field so far this cycle, and if the Sun remains quiet for another year or so, it may indicate a repeat of the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th to 19th centuries, bringing massive snowfalls and severe weather.

Dr Oleg Sorokhtin, fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, recently published a paper asserting that a global cold spell could replace global warming. He believes that "Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer."

But I fear none of this is likely to placate the global warmists who see the cold winter as just part of the "underlying" (sic) story of global warming. Armageddon predictions continue to be made, the latest from the Health Protection Agency, warning that by 2112 there will be a one in 40 chance that a serious heatwave in the south-east of England will cause 3,000 immediate heat- related deaths.

It won't be long now before those reports are dusted down showing Scotland as a tropical paradise with Loch Katrine as a palm-fringed lagoon, orang-utans swinging through Aberfeldy and the residents of Morningside complaining of falling coconuts.

Faced with evidence of cooler temperatures, global warmists argue that any evidence of climate abnormality supports their case. Like this prediction for example: "…(the] weather gets progressively worse and tends towards extremes: heat waves and cold snaps, floods and droughts, frosts and snow in the tropics and bizarre hot weather as far north as Scandinavia".

Actually, this is from a publication by Lowell Ponte in 1976, sonorously entitled The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?

Oh dear. I fear this article will see me buried under an avalanche of icy letters from the warmists. But, please, help me out here. Send me instead a new hot-water bottle. Henry's looking knackered.





The full article contains 886 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 February 2008 8:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Bill Jamieson
 
1

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 01:13:46
"the relentless propaganda of the global warming industry". Glad to see you've not prejudged the issue.
2

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 01:22:11
Oh look, he's reproduced large sections of an article from the Washington Times verbatim and without acknowledgment:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

Most of the rest of the text is also culled from anti-global- warming sites on the internet: take a sentence, paste it into Google and see where he got it from.

No point actually thinking about these things; just look for stuff on the internet that supports your opinions and then plagiarise it. Lazy, ignorant journalism at its worst.
3

Unimpressed one,

22/02/2008 08:17:17
#2, Most of the text is from mainstream news reports from various sources. Global warming/climate change believers are shortly going to be exposed as naive and gullible idiots. Hopefully the media and politicians that are spouting this tripe will be reminded by the sane majority just how they were responsible for propagated the greatest scam in living memory.
4

nabodican,

Portree 22/02/2008 08:55:19
What price the IPCC and Al Gore now?

Will it stop Scotland being covered with useless wind turbines though !!!
5

bsacr2007,

Norwich 22/02/2008 10:19:37
Bill Jamieson's comments may not be the most original known to man, but people ought to know that January 2008 was the coldest month worldwide - on one measure since 1994.

Also, note the global mean temperature has not been changing particularly significantly (prior to 2008) since 2002, if not 1998 and southern hemispheric mean temperatures have not been warming for 25 years or more.

If the IPCC only properly reviewed the facets of climate change that emerge within the full climate science peer-reviewed literature, we could have greater confidence in their utterances. But they choose their Lead Author personnel from climate modellers and others with a vested interest in AGW theory being sustained. And, at the "take home point" level, they are forever ratcheting up their percentage confidence (currently 90%) in global warming being largely human induced, but not on any scientific grounds, just one big collective hunch, in turn making a mockery of the process.

People also ought to realise that the UN's FCCC, which underlies Kyoto, uses a definition of climate change that excludes everything but the human impact on the atmosphere by greenhouse gases emissions. If ever there was a quasi-scientific body whose unstated agenda is becoming ever more apparent, whilst maintaining a veneer of impartiality, it is Working Group I of the IPCC.

Once it truly dawns on people (and the mainstream media need to get their act together as well here - you know allowing some scientifically literate investigative jounrnalists to let rip might be a start) just how sharp the practice is within the IPCC, perhaps its main protaganists will be wishing it hadn't become quite so exposed with its co-awarded Nobel Peace Prize, as the rest of us demand it cleans up its act, or preferably is disbanded.

Either way, time for wiser heads to be listened to on this issue.

Next time some politician suggests that an organisation is the "most authoritative body" to pronounce on some issue,
6

bsacr2007,

Norwich 22/02/2008 10:23:30
take pause for breath, and thought.

"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist..."
“No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.”
Jacob Bronowski
7

Neil,

Glasgow 22/02/2008 11:20:11
Welcome to reality Bill. Been saying this for years.

If Hammer of himself thinks we have not been subect to relentless global warming propaganda he will doubtless be able to name the occasion when, proving they are committed to their legal duty of honest reporting, the BBC devoted an entire day to exploring the sceptical case. Thus matching the entire day devoted to the deep scientific thoughts of Al Gore & Madona, compered by that scientific illuminati Jonathan Ross.

The fact is that the globe is cooling which is incompatible with the claim that it is warming.
8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 11:58:18
At last the truth is beginning to out.

If I remember rightly, some of the propaganda swapped the term "global warming" for "climate change" a few years back.

The reason for this was because whilst they were prophecising that Siberia was going to turn into something akin to the Arizona dessert, the global temperature was not actually changing. People were also starting to notice that the weather was just as good/bad as it had ever been.

So, what they did was swap the word "weather" for "climate" (the two are not the same) and they were on to a winner. People accept that the weather changes and therefore by upping it a gear to climate and introducing some subtle word-play, they could carry on with their propaganda.

They then blamed "climate change" on "carbon emissions" and made the connection about driving cars etc. Absolute, total rubbish.

By accentuating reports of bad weather around the globe, they could "prove" that they were correct. In reality, nothing has happened regarding weather than has not been happening for thousands of years. More emphasis is put on it. That's all.

Take the 1987 hurricane for instance. At the time, it was looked upon as freak weather (which it was). If it happened now, "scientists" would be trying to tell us that it was going to happen more and more frequently due to "climate change". In fact, the 1987 hurricane was brought in by the jet stream (which drives weather) from the Atlantic and was a result of a particular combination of deepening lows and temperature gradients.

There is an underlying problem behind all this and that is that fossil fuels are finite and we need to find alternatives. Why are they dressing it up and pretending it is something else?
9

Neil,

Glasgow 22/02/2008 13:48:28
I'm not overly worried about peak oil. We know we can keep the world running for billions of years on nuclear.

What I am worried about is the near monopoly various sorts of scaremongers have got on what is reported to us.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Menken said this 80 years ago but it seems to be even more true now, probably because government has grown so much & we no longer have real scare like the USSR. The degree to which the scaremongers are holding back progress & depriving humanity of our potential can hardly be overemphasised.
10

Geomac 1,

Kinross 22/02/2008 13:56:44
#1 Is not the propaganda from the global warming fraternity "relentless"?? Their nonsense pops up everywhere from new taxes to windmills to low energy light bulbs to driving cars etc etc.
Virtually every article and advert in the press and BBC News broadcast makes reference to global warming or climate change in some way or another.
Now that there are indications (early I admit) that perhaps the tide is turning (literally) it's time that we heard more from the other side of the debate - or are you one of these committed diehards?
11

Club Player,

Aberdeen 22/02/2008 13:58:37
The evidence for man made global warming has been on the wane for a number of years:
1. Claims that ice core records showed a direct link between CO2 and temperature have been disproved with new studies showing that CO2 increases lags historic temperature rises by at least 500 years.
2. Evidence showing that 1998 was the warmest year since records began, has been put into doubt with the 1930's now being found to be warmer(at least in the US).
3. The infamous hockey stick graph (as used by all the best Gorebullists) has been utterly discredited.
4. There is no scietific consensus out there. There are many scientists out there who disagree with the theory of man made global warming. They just don't receive any media coverage (including from this paper which is continually promoting an extremist climate change outlook.
5. As pointed out in the article above there has been no warming since 1998 which is utterly inconsistent with the theory that CO2 causes global warming when you consider the massive increases in this trace gas following the economic booms in India and China.
12

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 14:33:30
#10. I'm by no means a committed diehard, but the fact is that Mr Jamieson's article consists entirely of convenient anecdotes taken from the internet and reprinted without any attempt at critical analysis. If a university student submitted an essay in this style then they'd be failed on grounds of plagiarism.

One of the major problems in the debate on climate change (on both sides) is that a large part of it simply consists of people searching the internet for statements which support their side of the argument and then quoting them at each other without thinking. This gets us absolutely nowhere, and now we have Mr Jamieson playing the same game in a national newspaper.

I feel very strongly that this is piece is a very poor excuse for journalism. Please let's see some proper investigation and analysis, and not just quoting of random anecdotes.
13

Geomac 1,

Kinross 22/02/2008 16:28:34
#12 You make some valid points - that said, I don't think that Bill Jamieson's article is nearly as bad and mythical as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". At least Bill's article is founded on reality!
14

Neil,

Glasgow 22/02/2008 16:33:25
Your complaint is that other people have said this before. Would it be more convincing if nobody had?

If you were to criticise the sceptics by saying that the points either Bill or Club 44 had made were factually wrong you would have a serious argument & a good one if they were wrong. But they aren't. There HAS been no warming since 1998 The Hockeystick WAS mathmatical mince, indeed fraud, 1934 WAS warmer than even 1998, at least in the US. It really IS snowing, heavily, across China.
15

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 18:48:18
No, my complaint is the sheer shoddiness of the writing. I actually try to have an open mind on this subject, and I really do want to know the truth. Unfortunately, I don't think articles like the present one contribute anything at all to the debate, except to make it even more polarised.

I believe that Bill Jamieson is primarily a financial journalist. In this piece he shows no sign that he has any understanding of climatological science or any wish to understand it (and I apologise if I'm wrong about that). He's made his mind up about what he wants to believe, and he's gone and found himself some figures that back him up, and then he's cut and pasted them into his article. For goodness sake, he's not even bothered to rearrange the words in a lot of the stuff he's taken from the internet. What sort of journalism is that?

Let me repeat, I really do want to know what's happening to the climate and I'm quite willing to look at the evidence on both sides. But the problem is that much of the debate just consists of uninformed repetition of things found on the internet, and Mr Jamieson's article falls firmly into that category. I would have hoped for something better from the Scotsman.
16

Seoras67,

Edinburgh 22/02/2008 20:57:22
Well said Mr Jamieson. Whether he googled the article or not is a side issue. The eco extremists have had it their own way for too long. If they were quoting science and facts fair enough but most of the time they resort to emotional blackmail and generalisations. Scientific it ain't. Let's have some well written - and researched - articles pointing out the obvious flaws in the position of the vocal advocates of Global warming. Time for more journalists to challenge the global warming consenus.
17

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 22/02/2008 21:31:08
What a pleasant surprise in The Scotsman! An article that isn't loaded with unsupported claims and interpretations but actually looks at the data.

So what if similar reports have appeared elsewhere? That doesn't alter the facts. And don't tell me that Gore and the like (including many websites) don't pick up items from other sources.

Yes temperatures have fallen but that's after a plateau of about 5 years where temperatures were slightly elevated. And before that (we're back to 1999 and 2000) temperatures were on the cool side after a peak in 1998.

By any logical assessment, the pattern of temperature variation during an almost constant increase in carbon dioxide concentration must cast doubt on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is a significant driver of temperature.

18

AndesOwl,

Phoenix, Arizona, USA 22/02/2008 23:54:07
An excellent article and you're not wrong. Ice ages are preceded by increase in populations of all species, considerable warming and prosperity. Your article summed up everything I've been saying to family and friends for the past year. Don't worry, people never want to see the truth until it's too late for them to do anything about it. Your awareness and mine gives us the opportunity to settle ourselves in situations that will help us cope with the inevitable.
19

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 26/02/2008 16:34:23
HAHhaa! JohnM congratulates an article for looking at the data, when it doesn't have any climatological data in it.

As for Andes owl- what on earth do you mean? using the same logic, warm periods of great fertility are naturally preceded by very cold periods.
20

Alan Reid,

NZ 02/03/2008 23:21:46
There is such a thing as GW, but that did not stop C4 showing the Great Global Warming Swindle which was it self a Great Swindle. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
21

anncoff,

Canada 07/03/2008 19:51:58
I do wish people would stop confusing "global warming" and "climate change". Eratic weather is entirely consistent with climate change models and current experience everywhere on Earth. Droughts, floods, and periods of extreme heat and cold are perfectly normal in this period of rapid climate changes that we are now living in, and that has been steadily developing for some time - and even predicted as long ago as the mid-1800s! Scotland may be cold this winter, but Australia and California have devastating prolonged droughts.

It absolutely stands to reason that if humans emit 6 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year (which is equivalent to burning all of Canada's forests every year), and the world's primary oxygen producers - the oceans and tropical rainforests - are simultaneously increasingly incapable of producing as much oxygen as hitherto, that the chemistry of the atmosphere will change resulting in a changed climate.

50 years or so ago, forests and wetlands in the United States produced enough oxygen for its own use and "exported" the rest. Today, due to the loss of wetlands (about 300,000 acres a year) and the razing of forests, the US now imports half of its oxygen needs (33 lbs per person per day). The oceans are covered by a layer of oil which inhibits oxygen production, and the phytoplankton which serve as a carbon sink and produce oxygen are damaged or killed by exposure to UVB (due to ozone depletion).

We should all know how much of the world's tropical forest, a primary producer of oxygen, is being felled for ethanol production and growing beef.

According to a French agronomist, Rene Dumont, in 1988 alone the impacts of climate change (mostly compliments of the western world) killed over a million people in the "Third World". So our emissions and lack of action are killing a lot of people because climate change is altering the world's weather. No rain, no crops. Increased heat, increased drought, pests and diseases. Increased
22

anncoff,

Canada 07/03/2008 19:58:09
Here's the rest of my comment -

Increased heat, increased drought, pests and diseases. Increased drought, more forest fires. It's all happening NOW.

And people scoff at the "notion" of climate change? Such people are not only idiots without any powers of reason or common sense, they are also behaving in a way that results in the death of millions of people, of entire ecosystems, and also of other species. We are losing 1,000 times the number of species as seen in the fossil record - we are driving 18,000 to 58,000 ENTIRE species to extinction every year! The primary causes are habitat loss because of climate change and expanding development, overconsumption and pollution.

If people like Mr. Jamieson think that climate change is a crock, they should just get out of the way and let the people who want to stop the destruction of our life support system do the job.

James Hansen, a much respected and world renowned NASA scientist has just warned the world that if we don't act immediately and stop this idiotic debate, we can expect the end of the "good life" in 20 years, and the die off of 80% of humans by the end of this century.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.