NY Times: It's Not Getting Warmer, We Don't Know Why, But We SWEAR It's Going to Get Warmer Soon

The NY Times has finally woken up and smelled the coffee (but as it turns out it's iced coffee). The Times science writers have finally figured out that global temperatures plateaued about 15 years ago agreeing with the Met office in the UK which is one of the key proponents of the Climate Change hoax who said global warming stopped over 15 years ago, and the  BBC which echoed that claim.

The last time the temperature rose, Al Gore's Chakra was working for Bill Clinton...that was way before his Oscar-winning movie and his investment company which "coincidentally" is poised to make billions of dollars off of the global warming scare.

That's the good news.  The bad news is (according to the climate change hoaxers) It's going to start getting warmer again, one day --they promise-- cross their hearts hope to die stick a needle in their eye, and this time they really truly mean it!

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Actually some (like me) like to point to the medieval warming period which was warmer than it is today and there was little CO2 going into the atmosphere compared to modern times.

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

Dr Don Easterbrook, who has published over 150 peer-reviewed scientific studies, warns that a destructive world-wide climate change us upon us. Easterbrook says we should expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been. He bases his prediction on looking at temperature changes ever the past 500 years.

The data reflects that over the past 500 years there has been a pattern of short-lived warming and cooling episodes none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. The record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years. 

Hold on to  your winter coats just a bit longer Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory agrees. The good Doctor says we are heading toward a long period of climate change, and not the kind that Al Gore is getting rich from.

German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years, the UK shudders under temperatures 5 to 10 degrees Celsius below normal levels for this time of year and  Dr Abdussamatov is showing it is proof that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age."


But the NY Times is convinced that it is pollution slowing down their global warming trend:

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.

Today, factory pollution from China and other developing countries could be playing a similar role in blocking some sunlight. We will not know for sure until we send up satellites that can make better measurements of particles in the air.

What happened when the mid-20th-century lull came to an end? You guessed it: an extremely rapid warming of the planet.

There are those adherents of the Church of Global Warming who are living in a cabin in the middle of a forest  waiting for the end. They believe that we are close to the warming tipping point and with it; fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifice, TV remotes vanishing, dogs and cats living together.. mass hysteria!

For those people, I have good news, you can take off the purple sneakers and come out. To paraphrase "Honest Abe," One Score of years ago our fathers looked at the thermometer and the temperature was the same as it was today.

The truth is  man-made computer models with elements created by man and input from man  are not matching real-life climate with elements created by God. Anyone surprised? But these scientists have invested so much time and effort into their computer models they refuse to acknowledge that perhaps those computer programs are wrong--science is not just about computer models its about observation, but the warming hoaxers refuse to admit that the climate outside isn't agreeing with their computers...and who is the skeptic?