Facebook Twitter

Temperatures have risen just 0.29C – less than a third of a degree – in the last two decades.


Despite alarmist theories, world temperatures have remained almost stagnant for the last two decades, says this article in the Daily Mail.

“Temperatures across the globe rose by around a third of a degree last year from the average of 14 degrees Celsius recorded between 1961 and 1990.”

The findings come as UK consumers feel the full force of a raft of environment policies introduced in the name of climate change.

“By 2030, ‘green’ policy burdens could cost families an extra £267 (US$432) a year and have already raised current energy bills by £78 annually,” the article continues.

It raises questions about whether vulnerable people should be made to make the choice between heating and eating, said Tory MP Anne Main.

‘These figures show that the cost to domestic energy bills from these policies will be significant and is a cause for concern,” said Mrs Main. “I am worried that the most vulnerable in my constituency could be hardest hit by these policies.”

See entire article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134769/Is-global-warming-just-hot-air-Worl d-temperatures-risen-just-0-29C-decades.html
Thanks to Jeff Rense and Norfolk Peasant for this link

“Actually, this article is gross disinformation,” says reader Lloyd Robins. “Note that it states “Temperatures across the globe rose by around a third of a degree last year from the average of 14 degrees Celsius recorded between 1961 and 1990,” when in reality the temperature rose far more than that to 1998, plateaued at that point, then dropped again from there to present day temperatures.

“It didn’t rise at all last year, in fact,” says Lloyd. “But they have to write these things to make everything fit with the idea that even if the temperature rise slows down, it’s still rising, as per the Church of Global Warming. How are they going to deal with this year’s temperature drop? They’ll have to go back to the Dalton Minimum so they can say the temperature this year “rose” from then….”


“Its wasn’t as much a gradual loss of rural stations as a Deliberate closing of almost all of the high and rural ones, thousands of them,” says Laurel. “And siting temp collectors IN airport surrounds near runways, is less than honest data collection. Then they started adjusting the past temps to Cooler to make recent ones look higher.

“Its outright FRAUD!”

 

25 Responses to World temperatures have barely risen in the past 20 years

  1. kenneth lund says:

    well actually it doesn’t make much sense – temps have dropped dramatically since 2000.

    • Paul says:

      I agree.
      This small rise is an illusion created by the gradual loss of rural weather stations and the increasing UHI due to the siting of urban stations.

      • Laurel says:

        hi mate, its wasnt as much a gradual loss of rural stations as a Deliberate closing of almost all of the high and rural ones, thousands of them.
        and siting temp collectors IN airport surrounds near runways, is less than honest data collection.
        then
        the started adjusting the past temps to Cooler to make recvent ones look higher.
        its outright FRAUD!

    • Dale says:

      Sorry, I disagree. Temperatures have not “dramatically” dropped since 2000. They have remained variable. However, the mean pattern of temperatures have increased since the 70’s. In southeast Texas we have “dramatically” less periods of frigid temperatures now than we did when I was a kid in the 70’s. We don’t have frost on the windshields anymore. Didn’t have one overnight freeze this last so called “winter”. Not even one!! The sunspot count is up to five now. What is considered an “average” amount of sunspots that would indicate a ramping up of the suns output??? Where is the documentation of the global “dimming”?? I’d like to read it too…

      • Igor says:

        Global Dimming,its real discovered by respected researcher from the Swiss federal institute of technology Atsumu Ohmura. Independant studies from Israel and Netherlands in the 1980s proved the fact there is less sunlight at ground level. “His findings appeared to contradict global warming”. In Canada here there wasn’t much of a winter this year,and were the the front line of the next iceage.The turning point of climate change is near…what goes up must come down and vice versa.

      • John the 1st says:

        Its important to remember that the 70s were a period of dramatic cooling.
        Whatever warming you personnaly are experiencing must be seen as anecdotal rather than empirical. On average we are cooler now than we have been since 1998. Yes this winter here in the US was mild but it was a bugger in Eastern Europe. If I am not mistaken you guys had a hard freezes all over Texas 2 years ago and snow in San Antonio last year. There was a picture I believe on this site that showed snow in all 50 states year before last.

        • Wayne D. says:

          So, I hope you’re right about this warming in south east Texas being an anecdote, rather than how it’s going to be for the near future. Personally I really miss the exciting weather we had here several decades ago during that period of dramatic cooling.

  2. Phillip Elliott says:

    “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” Mark Twain

    Weather station locality, placement, I think plays a very important role in weather temperature measurement. Airports, heat islands like cities have an adverse effect on true temperatures so I don’t think there is a way to measure that kind of degree change and say this is how it is. People like to say average, but average to one set of scientists is different to another. “Oh”, Never mind,as in Star Wars “Nothing to see here folks. Move along.”

  3. Andy says:

    Over the last 72 years, from 1940 to 2012, temperatures rose only during one 18 year period, from 1980 to 1998. That is only 25 percent of the time. That is not very convincing evidence of catastrophic warming. Temperatures actually fell between 1950 and 1979.

  4. Igor says:

    Vague article and it does not mention how or where the temp data was averaged out from. Satellite data from the upper atmosphere seems most accurate,ground based readings from selective regions of earth(cities)or heat islands may not be an accurate world wide picture of world avg temps from what I read.I have also read “Global dimming” of 2to3 percent less irradiance in the past decades! Seems like there’s always a monkey wrench ready to be thrown in the gears of the weather and climate. Hot and cold will never be at peace.

  5. Lloyd says:

    Actually, this article is gross disinformation – note that it states “Temperatures across the globe rose by around a third of a degree last year from the average of 14 degrees Celsius recorded between 1961 and 1990.”, when in reality the temperature rose far more than that to 1998, plateaued at that point, then dropped again from there to present day temperatures.

    It didn’t rise at all last year, in fact. But they have to write these things to make everything fit with the idea that even if the temperature rise slows down, it’s still rising, as per the Church of Global Warming. How are they going to deal with this year’s temperature drop – they’ll have to go back to the Dalton Minimum so they can say the temperature this year “rose” from then….

  6. jeremy says:

    I dont believe co2 is responsibile for any warming of the climate,and do not like al gore and his ilk,but surface temps have not cooled dramatically since 2000,google dr roy spencer latest global temp for objective satellite data.

    • Pat says:

      There is also the question of how to guess an average temp when many of the stations in the former USSR are now gone. How do you compare sat. data with ice cores and be accurate. How do you believe the sat data, when a yeaar or two ago, the data was showing around 200f around the great lakes? There is no way NASA would manipulate the data, would they?

    • Kyle says:

      Dr. Spencer has been called out by several of his peers on his work though for 1) not understanding how the tools of measurement work and 2) his claims that space is “cold” when it’s actually a vacume. On top of this SPencer himself is the one who defied scientific protocol and went public with his theory on global warming and backed it with bad claims and inaccurate interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics.

  7. Emma says:

    A little off topic, but definitely relevant: The Australian government is trying it’s best to discredit skeptics, with this show on a ‘debate’ on climate change: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/
    (Did anyone else from Aus see this??)

    All this show resulted in doing was allowing the warmist poster girl rather than debating with skeptics sought to discredit them! She looked like a ‘tard because nothing intelligent came out of her mouth! One scary thing though that was said by a warmist was ‘Democracy is messy and we should do away with it!’ When asked what the alternative was, the warmist girl replied, ‘Well, we just like all work together!’ Definition of communism?

    Even if you’re not Australian, if you can get a hold of a recording of this, it’s worth watching, if only to laugh at the incredible stupidity of the warmists and how the debate turned into being about renewable energy and not climate change at all because the warmist girl was clearly too stupid to debate about real science!

  8. Laurence M. Sheehan, PE says:

    What madness this all is. With so few temperature measuring stations, along with the changes of location, it is impossible to find an “average” temperature of all the air on the planet. Total madness to even attempt to do so.

    What we engineers call a SWAG. Scientific wild-ass guess.

  9. Theo says:

    The same BS they are feeding us about global warming, the same lies about peak-oil and fossil oil!
    Titan, one of Saturn’s moons has a lake called ontario and is completely made of methane and ethane! So where did these hydrocarbons come from then? dinosaurs?? no sir!!!!

  10. Felicity says:

    Hi, I’m totally new to this website. It was recommended by a friend. There’s two things that strike me… firstly, I don’t understand this constant reference to ‘warmists’, as if everyone who believes in the warming of the planet is somehow diseased or something. Labeling in this way is rarely useful and only serves to create an entirely pointless ‘us and them’ mentality. I find that quite disappointing as I was looking for intelligent reasons from this website to question my own beliefs. But instead I feel like I’m already not welcome, as I guess I’m one of those ‘warmist’. Does the fact that I care about our planet, about all environmental issues, about children etc count for anything? Or am I just bundled into this category?

    Secondly, I don’t understand where the data is coming from for this cooling. Every scientist I have read has talked about warming. The following cut and paste from Australia’s CSIRO website says the same, and it’s not like recording weather patterns is something that can be easily misquoted, as many different organizations measure this:

    “State of the Climate 2012 provides an updated summary of long-term climate trends. It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade having been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s. The warming trends observed around Australia are consistent with global-scale warming that has been measured during recent decades, despite 2010 and 2011 being the coolest years recorded in Australia since 2001. Global-average surface temperatures were the warmest on record in 2010 (slightly higher than 2005 and 1998). 2011 was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Niña event. The world’s 13th warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years.”

    Obviously, this is just a tiny segment of the whole report, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying. So why would people on this site choose to totally refute this data?

    Kind Regards
    Felicity

    • John the 1st says:

      Welcome Felicity. The data that is posted here by Mr. Felix comes from all over. NOAA, NASA, various universities etc.
      Please don’t let the ‘warmist’ talk put you off your quest for knowledge. Most of us have been following this site for a very long time and have been skeptical about agw for an even longer time. It has become apparent to us that two camps have already formed. Especially when you read the recent articles suggesting that skeptics should have their homes burned or that we are mentally ill and need treatment.
      If you look back at some of the other articles you will see where our attitudes derive from.
      At any rate welcome and I hope you find the site as interesting as the rest of us do.

    • John the 1st says:

      If you have an hour and change to kill here is a video that pretty much sums up how a lot of think.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded

    • @Felicity … Your question is legitimate, however it would take many pages — maybe even an entire website (like this one) — to answer in full.

      But first, one reason for the *warmist* term is that people such as seen here on these pages, and many other similar websites (but frankly, this is one of the best) have been overtly labeled *deniers* and worse. You can find many references from high level government types saying people like us should be *tried for treason* or being on the level of holocaust deniers, or in need of mental retraining. Their rhetoric has turned, frankly, vile & violent over the years. So the *warmist* term is actually quite polite and reasonable, and accurate. Maybe if they had settled for calling us *coolists* instead of on the level of holocaust deniers, the interactions might have stayed more civil. But as you might no, some of the so-called *deniers* have lost funding and jobs because they tried to publish research, or take actions, that showed a different story than the *warmists* needed to maintain their funding. Especially when wide-spread proof started coming out that they were lying about many of the statistics.

      As far as refutation of facts, you need to unearth, for example, the recent article on this site quoting the 40 or 50 employees of NASA wanting the management of NASA to stop publishing false information as applied to the climate, information that these employees of NASA say is NOT factual in nature, and does NOT reflect well on the supposedly high standards of science they at NASA are supposed to embrace. Or when it was discovered that the so-called *hockey-stick* of dramatic temperature rise was a fraud, leaving out important data when the earth was much warmer than now. Or when the emails were leaked showing the supposedly *world
      class* scientists were privately admitting they had to fudge the figures to hide the truth.

      There are countless articles on many websites — many of them you can access through this website — going into great detail dissecting and refuting the various claims of the people who advocate the warming models.

      Frankly, there are many of us who believe many of the sources of warming information are guilty of outright fraud. For example, the idea of CO2 being a *toxic pollutant* really boggles the mind if you look at the issue with any degree of neutral knowledge about it.

      Why would the *warmists* say such things? Well, it might be true that the oil industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars examining global warming, and maybe there was some or a lot of bias there, maybe not. (Profit making enterprises prefer to know the truth because that gives them a higher likelihood of making MORE profit. If their facts are wrong, they lose money or go out of business. Unless, of course, your business is protected from economic realities by the government, as is widespread in the world today.)

      But the governments of the world have spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars, rather than mere millions, trying to prove NOT whether or not warming was happening, but to build a case for it so they could implement world-wide taxes & regulations on the people of the Earth. A LOT of people (such as Al Gore’s corporate clients) are positioned to make a LOT of money if these taxes are passed. So many people ended up making a very good living off the Anthropogenic Global Warming paradigm that it became a *necessity* for it to be true.

      I could go on and on, Felicity — but although you are correct, many in the anti-global warming community have adapted an understandably defensive posture against the many people who’ve called them names and threatened them with violence and you might have to sit through some of that unhappy but understandable commentary — but the only real way to understand all this is to rise above those conflicts and look for the actual evidence that is abundant.

      And be prepared for the possibility that much, maybe even most, of what you’ve read and heard before your coming to sites like this has been significantly biased propaganda, or outright lies. And contrary to what lot of people want to believe, the government is the MOST likely group to be fabricating and dispensing the lies.

      As the late, famous historian Will Durant once said: while it might be true that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool enough of them to run a large country.

  11. Felicity says:

    Thankyou David and John, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I will continue to read and research until hopefully a vein of truth becomes evident.

    I do hope however that the denying of climate change does not detract from the need to significantly slow down the world’s obsession with consumption and waste and all it’s consequences. I think that some of what people hear when they hear ‘climate change denyer’ is that it is ok to continue burning fossil fuels etc without regard for it’s effect on the planet, our health and the environment at large. This creates immediate tension for anyone (ie. us people on the ground, not govt and corporations) whose motivation for believing in climate change is to preserve the planet. In this situation, climate change denial is almost seen as a rejection of clean energy.

    Perhaps this is just the ‘image’ that is being conveyed, however I have also met people who seem to deny climate change simply for the fact that it means they can carry on doing whatever they like to plunder the planet, ie. they don’t have to change.

    I do hope that rather than the creation of a mass divide, that some consensus can come of people’s differences. I hope that people can come together in what is best for the planet at large. The ‘detail’ is of course important, but if all we do is argue over the detail we may well miss our opportunity to do what is needed to secure a sustainable future, whatever that entails.

    If you have time, I’d be interested to know the general consensus on clean and renewal energies from a ‘coolist’ perspective. Anyway, that’s all for now!

    Thanks again for your considered response.

  12. jeremy says:

    felicity here are some other sites you might find interesting,(WATTS UP WITH THAT and,CLIMATEDEPOT,also research on youtube global warming and eugenics.


Hit Counter provided by seo company