Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express Express - Breaking news, sport and showbiz from the World's Greatest Newspaper
Newspaper Cover Page
Our Paper

Front and Back Pages, E-Edition and Back Issues...

Weather
 17°C
London
Sunday 1st August 2010 Make us your HOME PAGE  What is RSS?

UK NEWS

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT

Story Image


A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995

Monday February 15,2010

By Ed Price

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.


MORE FROM EXPRESS.CO.UK ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE...

* WHAT  A CLIMATE CON!

* CLIMATE CHANGE 'INDUSTRY' IN DEEP TROUBLE

* CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE

* GLOBAL WARMING 'TO BECOME' GLOBAL COOLING


The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.

SEARCH UK NEWS for:

The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.

Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.

The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.

Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.

Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

But Professor Jones said: “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.

The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.

“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.

Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a “blip” in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth’s temperature.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: “The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC’s last report said: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”



User Image

IPCC'S KEVIN TRENBERTH POLITICIZED HURRICANE ACTIVITY

25.02.10, 6:08pm

Excerpts from "An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC)" by Chris Landsea on 17 January 2005 follows:
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. ----- I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate. ---- It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
------ I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

• Posted by: QuiTam2Report Comment

User Image

DR PACHAURI, CHAIRMAN OF THE IPCC

25.02.10, 1:56pm

EngineeringGal,
In order to learn about the IPCC’s connection to Transnational Corporations, please see the article at the web page as follows:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Questions-over-awards-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html
A small sample is as follows: "The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), of which Dr Rajendra Pachauri is the director-general, has given corporate awards to companies such as Pepsi and Honda, as well as Indian businesses. … The disclosure will lead to further questions over possible conflict of interest against Dr Pachauri, whose position as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is already under threat over errors in its reports.
The Department for International Development (DfID) has pledged to give Teri up to £10 million in grants over five years but will subject the institute to an “institutional assessment”, expected to take at least five months, before handing over any of the money.
Among the companies that have received Teri corporate awards is Hero Honda, a joint venture between the Japanese car company and an Indian firm that manufactures millions of motorbikes every year."

• Posted by: QuiTam2Report Comment

User Image

STRUCTURAL TENDENCY TO POLITICIZE

25.02.10, 1:28pm

EngineeringGal, you have not answered my question in my previous comment. Quoting the politically corrupted IPCC does not reflect the real nature of the IPCC.
Posted November 27, 2009 in the NYT’s Climate Fear Profiteer website, DOT EARTH, an admission by the University of East Anglia’s climate scientist Mike Hulme is as follows:
"It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive."

• Posted by: QuiTam2Report Comment

User Image

WHERE DO YOU SEE CORPORATIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT?

24.02.10, 3:11pm

What is interesting to me is how so many of you play right into the hands of big oil and coal by not doing your own research on this issue. The effects of climate change are real and happening right now with terrible results. Carbon and methane are only increasing in the atmosphere and as negative feedback loops continue to spiral as countries like China and India put more coal plants online and more cars on the road, the effects will be hard for even deniers like you to ignore any longer.

The U.S. Census estimates that the world's population rise from about 2.5 billion in 1950 to about 9.2 billion in 2050. Do you not feel that we need to begin a serious change away from something as finite, politically challenging and polluting as fossil fuels?

Below is a copy/paste from the IPCC website explaining how it is organized. I don't see anything in here about corporations.

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

• Posted by: EngineeringGalReport Comment

User Image

MUSSOLINI HAD A NAME FOR IT

22.02.10, 3:44pm

EngineeringGal, I can remember when Climatology was an objective study of the world’s climate that did not send students into the streets chanting socialist slogans. Because the UN IPCC’s socialist politicians have partnered with transnational corporations such as General Electric and ExxonMobil, the UN IPCC’s current status is more like one of Mussolini’s Committees during the 1930s in Italy than the Climate Fear Profiteer Scientists’ idealized Socialism. Mussolini had a name for his government that was to be run by committees made up of scientists, manufacturers, nonprofit institutions and government officials. If the Climate Fear Profiteer Professors and the IPCC get their way, the government of the entire world in 2030 will look like the government of Italy in 1930. EngineeringGal, do you know what the name was that Mussolini had for his government that was run by committees made up of scientists, manufacturers, nonprofit institutions and government officials?

• Posted by: QuiTam2Report Comment

User Image

THE US AND THE UK ARE INDEED CAPITALIST SOCIETIES

20.02.10, 4:16pm

I wonder if people think that companies that see the writing on the wall with regards to climate change should not be allowed to make a profit on the development of new technologies. I was happy to read that Exxon Mobile is taking the matter seriously be expanding its natural gas and algae operations. I hope they do make a profit on greener energy production.

In the meantime, though, you don't see Exxon really rallying the cause of climate change, right? In other words, they are simply trying to keep their bread buttered on both sides. Oil and gas continue to be their mainstream profit source and they still have scientists on board who are happy to point out that all climate research is wrong. But notice how they are looking to the future because they know that oil is a finite resource, is heavily polluting to use, and provides money to countries with terrorists.

Also, I ask you, do you really believe that our planet can process and sustain emissions from vehicles and coal plants at the current, ever expanding rate? Do you think that our population can continue to use fossil fuels with no affect to the environment? To me, it's plain common sense that billions of humans using coal to heat their homes, oil to drive their cars and fly their planes, and oil to fertiilize crops and make a long list of consumer products from textiles to tires, are having an unprecedented and extremely negative effect on our very air, soil, climate and water.

• Posted by: EngineeringGalReport Comment

View All Comments

To view all 'Have Your Say' comments, click this button...

Share...

Got A Story? Get in touch online
Email the news desk directly here!


Boys own up to villa stabbing

TWO boys have confessed to murdering a British businessman who was stabbed to ...

Read More Comment Speech Bubble Have Your Say(0)

Dick Francis, thriller writer and racing legend, dies at 89

TRIBUTES poured in for horse racing legend and best-selling thriller writer Dick...

Read More Comment Speech Bubble Have Your Say(0)

Warnings pressure for drinks firms

The drinks industry could be forced to put health warnings on alcohol under prop...

Read More Comment Speech Bubble Have Your Say(0)

Todays best TV right here for you at the Express. • See Guide

The Political Cartoonist of the Year