Global warming believer Tim Colebatch in The Age today tries to bat away an inconvenient truth - that the world hasn’t actually warmed for a decade. But more fervent than informed, he simply proves he doesn’t understand the argument, and probably doesn’t want to.
AS THE Liberal Party turns into a battleground between those who believe Australia should do its share to tackle global warming and those who deny that global warming exists....
Actually, that’s not the line of battle at all, Tim. For instance, you can believe global warming exists, but still think it crazy to try to stop it (the Bjorn Lomborg line until recently). Or, as in my case, you can think global warming indeed existed, at least until 1998, and may well resume - yet still think it’s important to consider the fact that there hasn’t been any warming for a decade, against all predictions. And then doubt, therefore, that man caused what warming has occured.
That, in fact, is the real argument that you so crassly define and try to dismiss.
...the graph at right is worth seeing.
I don’t have access to your graph as it appeared in The Age, Tim, but it is essentially this one below, and from exactly the same source:
But there is one modification. See that predicted spike in temperature for 2007, Tim? Didn’t happen, did it? Compare that prediction to the real data of 2007 in your own graph, Tim. Turned out to be a colder year, as is this one. Yet the organisation that produced this graph, and that prediction, is the one you rely on to assure us the great global warming apocalypse continues its relentless course. Still trust them, Tim?
That organisation that produced that graph turns out not to be the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that Tim says he sourced his graph from:
The data comes from the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia… It’s one of just three data sources on global temperatures, but the one deniers like to use.It happens to be a BBC produced graph L. Ron. If you click on the link, you will find this nugget that you withheld from your readers:
The 60% probability that 2007 would set a new record meant that it "was more likely than not", he concluded.
So the BBC editorialised the graph, it was not produced by the Met, as L. Ron unhappily thunders on about. There were no predictions offered by them, just probabilities.
Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change