Righto. They try to make that claim about
Monckton's analysis of data from the two weather satellites.
They refuse to recognize that it is the data itself which
leads to 18+ years of no additional warming - simply the
answer to a relevant question, namely . For how long as
there been NO additional warming? The answer becomes more
and more meaningful as the duration becomes longer. Of
course, one can always fall back on a really long term
trend. It's been cooling over the past 65 million years. Our
"leaders" have a stark choice. They can either meet in
luxurious environs, eat and drink well, and bloviate and
produce stuff to combat a potential problem. The success of
their actions may possibly be known years and decades from
now. Alternatively they can combat a real, acute problem
now. The success of their actions will be known within a
short time frame- say one year to get an initial idea. If
you were one of these leaders what would you do? It is
altogether convenient for politicians to use the scare
tactic of 'climate change' to garner votes from those who
prefer viewing themselves as 'victims'. And in the US that
tactic is entirely consistent with the democratic penchant
for engendering outright terror of anyone who does not agree
with the democratic views. Small wonder that politicians on
the left prefer shutting down open debate. Heaven forbid
that their followers might discover that republicans can be
decent and reasonable people and that 'science' is of no
value unless there can be open objective interchange.
Efforts to impose carbon caps and taxes are both destructive
and quixotic. As to the former, the author correctly
notes that a billion people stand to benefit enormously from
better access to carbon energy - access that will happen on
its own if governments don't get in the way. The benefit is
fundamental - longer, more comfortable and healthier lives.
Denying this benefit would be monstrously immoral. As to the
latter, the BRIC nations will never cap carbon, not
sufficiently to satisfy what the worst-case predictors say
is necessary. It's an enormous waste of time and resources
to pursue carbon caps. Any mitigation of AGW, should AGW
turn out to be net harmful, will necessarily be
technological in nature. The sooner we admit that, the
sooner we can stop pursuing pointless efforts that will do
great harm to billions.
There is one fatal
flaw in all of these attempts to establish global
temperatures. We have fairly accurate land
temperatures today, in the 15th year of the 21st Century. No
one can claim accurate global temperatures before the
present time. Perhaps an argument can be made that data from
land stations is fairly accurate during the last 50 years.
We cannot be so sure before that. However, ocean
temperatures create insurmountable problems with the
historical data. There are so many variables involved
that any sea data derived will be inherently imprecise and
flawed. The statistician attempt to remove bias from the
temperature record, but this is largely guesswork
susceptible to data corruption.
Bottom line: Climate scientists are comparing apples to
oranges but are asking us to believe the resultant analysis.
They and the pols are asking us to spend $trillions to
ameliorate a problem that likely doesn't exist. "fairly
accurate land temperatures" ? Hardly comparable to satellite
data, which is not used, nor mentioned by either NASA or
NOAA. Perhaps because they can't control that data?
(Satellite data shows no additional warming for the past 18+
years....) There are supposedly 3 terrestrial and 2
satellite datasets. That's evidently because 3 different
groups maintain and modify the raw data. Phil Jones (2003)
(part of the infamous IPCC gang) stated that all 3
terrestrial groups use 90 to 95% of the same raw data. Most
land-based temperature recording takes place within Urban
Heat Islands and that effect MUST be removed, and the effect
generally varies over time, so must be removed every year.
The historical data is also regularly "corrected", but that
"fix" invariably leads to more cooling in earlier data and
more warming in recent data -- hence more current warming
--- invariably. If you believe that is coincidental, I've
got a bridge you'll want to buy.