So, is global warming stopping all of the sudden? (No)

The UK Met Office, a climate agency, released some information about the immediate future, based on modeling. Briefly, it notes that natural cooling effect may temporarily ameliorate the increase in temperatures caused by global warming in some locals; it does not say that global warming is attenuated in any way whatsoever. It is more of a long term weather forecast than a climate change prediction.

The climate science denialist community, a community run by willfully wrong miscreants and with a following of mostly ignorant sycophants, and which only likes modeling when it seems to show what the denialists want it to show, made much inappropriate hay of thisleading to BBC Today to produce this headline:

"Met Office Does Not Believe that Global Warming Will Be As Severe As Previously Predicted"

When asked, the Met Office says they'd prefer the following headline to reflect what they were saying:

"Latest forecast for the next five years show that the earth will continue to be at record high levels, and there is a fair chance that new records will be made during that period."

Here is the BBC fixing their mess-up:

Sad to see Today digging in rather than getting on board with a vigorous effort at making it right.


More like this

I was pointed at What’s the point of BBC guidelines when it comes to climate change? in the Graun by Richard Black (director, Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and former BBC science and environment correspondent (errm, I mean that's who RB is. It wasn't him that pointed me at that piece)). And…
Climate change has had a big impact in Africa. We can certainly talk about that some time. But when a David Attenborough BBC special mentioned one aspect of climate change impact they got the facts wrong. Leo Hickman of The Environment Blog at The Guardian noticed the error and wrote a very…
Most observers of climate change media coverage long ago stopped wringing their hands every time Fox News reported that global warming has stopped and that humans are responsible anyway, mostly to avoid calluses. A while back it seemed like Fox might be ready to embrace the actual science, but old…
Over the last few weeks, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the Blogosphere about certain global warming related issues. Denialists have come on strong with two major and widely disseminated distortions of scientific reports and consensus, and scientists and those interested in saving the…

This is emblematic of the complete lack of thought that many institutions give to their responsibilities around clear communication and public relations, especially with such a controversial topic.

"Yes, we do accept that responsibility." Ok, how about this? It's an EXPERIMENT:

Which scenario demonstrates better results:

1) Poorly thought out statement leads to public confusion and fodder for the WELL-KNOWN denialist constituency. Are you people living in a vacuum?

2) Well thought out messaging based on some kind of PLAN (you've heard of those, right?) leads to clear statements based on facts, which in turn invites QUESTIONS from the public, which can then be answered by EVIDENCE. Evidence which, I might add, has been paid for by the public purse.

This is why institutions hire dedicated communications people and listen to their counsel.

Ah ha Greg
Your warmists friends are starting to squirm as the facts do not follow their models but fear not there will be more warming in due course until. 65NH insolation turns negative
Meanwhile don't take it all too seriously

By Graeme edwards (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

I wonder. There are a number of things to consider. I agree that the earth is warming. We are in an interglacial period, for chrissakes. The earth will continue warming until it doesn't. Then we head for another ice age.

But it still is to be proven that human activity is causing/contributing to the warming Or if so, precisely how much. The departure of the warming curve from the carbon dioxide curve is interesting, even challenging.

I saw a quote ten years or so ago by a physicist who said he did not trust results that came only from computers. After all, you can make the black box give you any answer you desire.
And reliable raw data seems to be a rare commodity, seeing as how NOAA keeps adjusting it.

Give us skeptics a little respect; we are not just "deniers" of science. A bunch of us have had at least some rudimentary education in one discipline or other.

Jim ChE Auburn (a long, looong time ago)

By Jim Brock (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink


Give us skeptics a little respect; we are not just “deniers” of science. A bunch of us have had at least some rudimentary education in one discipline or other.

If your education is only rudimentary, you have no choice but to trust the experts, and at least 97% of the experts -- that is, working, publishing climate scientists -- agree that warming is occurring, that humans are responsible for all of it, and that the consequences will be severe for billions of people. This isn't an appeal to authority but an appeal to expertise. These are the people who are most familiar with all the evidence from multiple lines of inquiry, and who have subjected their analyses to the unsparing criticism (hoo, boy) of the other experts.

If you don't trust the experts, you'll have to become an expert yourself before anyone will give you the respect you're asking for. I recommend you start with The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart of the American Institute of Physics. It's highly readable, and non-polemical. When you've absorbed that material, you'll trust the experts enough to visit SkepticalScience, where you'll find rebuttals to specific "skeptical" arguments. While the rebuttals are expertly written, and offer citations to peer-reviewed literature for all claims, the contributors tend to be impatient with commenters like Graeme, who persist in their erroneous arguments after their errors have been repeatedly explained to them.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Jim Brock :

I wonder. There are a number of things to consider. I agree that the Earth is warming. We are in an interglacial period, for chrissakes. The earth will continue warming until it doesn’t. Then we head for another ice age.

Or will we? Have you ever heard of the notion of the Anthropocene period? ( )

Also yeah, there are natural cycles such as the Milankovitch one responsible for natural ice ages but this current global overheating phenomenon ain't natural. See :

among many other places and clips and sources.

We know from isotopes and observations and calculations and good science that Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) is exactly that.

Of course, eventually on along enough timescale the Earth will heat up and become another Venus -due to our Sun's evolution into a sub-giant star and then finally our Earth will be probably destroyed altogether by our daytime star when it becomes a red giant.

But that longer geological timescale perspective is certainly not an excuse for us to bring this overheating fate forward any or wreck the lives of our children, grandchildren and, oh yeah, the rest of our lives too.

This whole subject is just ridiculous. Here we are Terra-forming this planet, cutting down a third of all trees, and we debate about the accuracy on how we inform people about global climate change. You want to know how bad its going to get, just look at everything 7 Billion humans are doing to the planet.