BBC Climate Correspondent Opens Eyes, Starts Walking Back Global Warming Baloney

EarthNASAHow well I remember it. In April 2006, when Bob Carter, in a UK Telegraph op-ed, observed that there had been no warming of the earth since 1998, global warming advocates screamed that Carter didn't know what he was talking about; that he was only "a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research," not a real climatologist; and that anyway, the science was settled, so he (and we) should shut up already.

3-1/2 years later, Paul Hudson, the climate correspondent (at least for now) at no less than the previously climate koolaid-poisoned BBC, without naming him, is acknowledging the correctness (HT Instapundit) of Carter's observations. The Beeb reporter also concludes .... brace for it .... that "it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." Imagine that.

As I've been writing for years, "Consensus, conschmensus."

Here are selected paragraphs from Hudson's report:

What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. (The contention about 1998 may be incorrect; it IS incorrect in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. -- see Update below)

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases.

.... But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

It doesn't really seem to be much of a "revolution" to admit that Mr. Sun influences global temps, but there it is.

This spreadsheet shows that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions grew from 23.16 billion metric tons in 1998 to 29.20 billion in 2006 -- a 26% increase. If manmade gases were causing warming, one would expect that we should have almost literally gone to Hades in a handbasket during that period, and to have burnt to a more serious crisp since then. Obviously, that has hasn't happened. It hasn't because the preponderance of the evidence, or at least of the evidence that hasn't been conveniently lost, seems to support the notion that the idea of man-made global warming may be one of the biggest hoaxes associated with power-grabbing efforts by statists in human history.

Given the evidence, it's truly frustrating to see this country's president continue to act as if man-made global warming is an established, irrefutable fact, and, along with his party, continue to insist that draconian cuts in this country's emissions must be made -- even as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) chug merrily along.

When the globalarmists are starting to lose the BBC, you know that their foundations are beginning to crumble. Quick -- better pass another bill that no one will have time to read or properly evaluate, and that the U.S. establishment media, still firmly in globaloney's grip, will cheer.

UPDATE: Thanks to BizzyBlog commenter zf for reminding me that 1934 is the hottest year on record, not 1998, at least in regards to the 48 contiguous states of the U.S.. I have revised my opening sentence accordingly. BBC's opening-paragraph contention regarding temperatures in the entire world in 1998 may be incorrect.

Cross-posted at

Taxes Economy Environment Media Bias Debate Global Warming Weather Bias by Omission BBC