Overheating Britain revisited

It was nearly three years ago that the global warming hype was running riot in the Independent. The Environment Editor, Michael McCarthy published a piece in April 2007 that began:

The possibility is growing that Britain in 2007 may experience a summer of unheard-of high temperatures, with the thermometer even reaching 40C, or 104F,a level never recorded in history.

Adding to the hype, inevitably, was the Met Office and Climategate central – the University of East Anglia’s CRU.  McCarthy reminded readers at the time:

The Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, in a joint forecast with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, has already suggested that 2007 will be the hottest year ever recorded globally.

A year after McCarthy’s breathless article and with poorer weather evident a now sleeping blog, The Daily Brute, wondered what had become of McCarthy’s speculation.  It seems rarely does a year go by when the Met Office and the propagandists at CRU are not declaring that we could experience the warmest year on record.  Indeed, they have already declared that 2010 (12th coldest year in the UK in the last 100 years) was a statistical tie with 2005 as the warmest year globally even though a substantial percentage of the globe does not have surface temperature stations.

The obvious thing to conclude here is that while Britain’s lower temperature must have played some part in dragging global temperatures down in 2010, freak conditions such as the intense heatwave in Russia must have had the effect of dragging them up. So it’s a misnomer to conclude that ‘global’ temperatures have risen.  The UK is part of the globe and the temperature here has fallen.  Indeed in many places temperatures were lower and in others warmer.  But the impression given by the climate hysterics is a uniform increase the world over, which is nonsense.

Despite this we can expect more McCarthyesque idiocy in the media fuelled by the money grubbers at CRU and the Met Office as their fixation with CO2 blinds them to the more powerful drivers such as oceanic behaviour and solar influence.

11 Responses to “Overheating Britain revisited”

  1. 1 MrT 20/02/2011 at 6:27 am

    Looks like the end game might have just started.
    I wonder if BuffHuhne will take any notice, or possibly try and fil the gap??


  2. 2 Martin Brumby 20/02/2011 at 8:09 am

    Sorry to rain on your parade. But you really ought to confess that not only hot weather and cold weather are unmistakable evidence that Global Warming is happenning NOWWWWW and that we’re all gonna die real soon.

    But worse than they thought, peer – reviewed Climate “Scientists” have just determined from their latest models, run on their most expensive, electicity guzzling Super Computers, that average weather is conclusive proof of the very same thing.

    Latest results show that unexceptional, completely boring weather is the worst of all. Even you climate numpties will realise that, because the weather is pretty boring most of the time, it is now absolutely imperative that you send ALL your money NOWWWW.

    Why, even Bob ‘Attack Chihuahua’ Ward has sent a five shilling postal order!

  3. 3 Agincourt 20/02/2011 at 10:21 am

    Impeachment is too good for them! Black Tom Strafford got it in the neck good & proper in 1641 (though whether he was genuinely guilty & even possibly innocent is still debatable). But the Met Office collectively are certainly guilty. Which suggests their penalty should be even tougher than Black Tom’s was!

  4. 4 Tom Mills 20/02/2011 at 10:44 am

    Averages again,like the man who drowned in a lake when the average depth was 6 inches.

  5. 5 Man made climate change is hype 20/02/2011 at 11:19 am

    Professor Richard Lindzen points out that the “warmest decade on record” is well within the range of perfecly normal variation

  6. 6 Man made climate change is hype 20/02/2011 at 11:22 am

    Professor Richard Lindzen gives a calm and rationale analysis of the science of climate change as opposed to the hysterics of climate alarmists

  7. 7 Man made climate change is hype 20/02/2011 at 11:24 am

    Professor Richard Lindzen dismisses climate alarmist predicitions :

  8. 8 Katabasis 20/02/2011 at 12:28 pm

    We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

    One of the things that makes communicating the many deep problems, not to mention outright falsifications, of the CAGW position is the romantic ideal people still maintain regarding scientists.

    They imagine good hearted, determined folk like Einstein, plying their art for the love of it in poverty.

    They appear to have no idea that scientists and academics have now become such an enormous rent-seeking class. Thus the howls of derision when suggesting that the “science” as presented isn’t quite what it appears.

  9. 9 London Calling 20/02/2011 at 9:13 pm

    We all recognise the Ecofacists desire to tell people how to live, hidden behind the “its for your own good” meme (or for the good of the planet, or future generations, or your grandchildren, whatever, its all boils down to the same)

    The problem is one all Religions have, the need for proof now. For them its not good enough to have one tenth of one degree a year increase over fifty years, that doesn’t sell newspapers, justify energy tax hikes, or frighten the children. We want sinking coral reefs, drowning bears, Tsunami hurricanes, apocalyptic visions of destruction now (cue Hollywood).

    Especially those linear “forward projections” based on unproven assumptions.

    This might well be the second hottest decade whatever, or three coldest years in a row – that is all just “weather” cycles no-one really understands. The most sinister thing is the compliance of the media in peddling these lies.

    Just watch your electricity bill, and astroturfed marketing as business climbs on the phony bandwagon of carbon footprints and “good for the environment” tosh.

  10. 10 Doug Proctor 21/02/2011 at 5:54 pm

    Is there a general problem with regional data (in time as well as space) distorting the global record? Not just for the UK/Russia situation, but in general? I’d say, “yes!”.

    Hansen says that GISTemp shows a higher global temp rise than RSS or UAH because “our Arctic data is better”. Truly, the Arctic is shown all red to black while the southern hemisphere is yellow and blue. The AGW crowd accepts this regional disparity as expected as shown by models. Perhaps, but still a global rise caused by a regional distortion.

    Look at the ARGO sea data: even though temperatures may be higher one month to the next, or year to year, WHERE they are warmer is different each time. So we have a general warming that occurs spot to spot, month to month.

    I understand trends, that this is why statistics work for us, by teasing out patterns hidden under the noise of local and short-term variances. However, if regional changes are what give global averages their trends, is it not of great importance to first determine if regional changes are not just regional before we give them global significance?

    Think population: the global average is climbing and doing so enough to worry all of us. Yet, the “problem” is not global, but regional. Much of the developed world has a real population decline “issue”. If we were to stick with the global trends and impose population measures worldwide, there would be no solution and great injustice.

    If you remove the Arctic from the temperature record, where is the “global” rise? Not the USA. Not Australia or New Zealand (by the raw data).

    This applies to satellite data, also. Where is the non-global temperature bumps pushing up the averages? And WHEN is it?

  1. 1 Tweets that mention Overheating Britain revisited « Autonomous Mind -- Topsy.com Trackback on 20/02/2011 at 12:37 am
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: