The Great Green Con no. 1: The
hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts
that are costing you
billions were WRONG all along
By David
Rose
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 05:55 EST, 17 March 2013
No, the world
ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data
that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will
eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU
think?
The Mail on
Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global
climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on
this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for
Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and
subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have
already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
global warming graph
Steadily
climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of
world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC).
The estimates –
given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent
chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.
But when the
latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over
the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of
falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.
Varying fears:
In 1977 we were warned of the 'next ice age', now we are warned that the planet
is getting dangerously hot
The graph shows
in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively
overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we
pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon
emissions.
The eco-debate
was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs
abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
A version of
the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment
Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to
admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are
revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles
Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem
Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for
a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now
says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be
significantly lower.
Prof Allen says
higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
The graph
confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s
average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last
year.
At the end of
last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession
of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will
last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world
will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.
experts
Its source is
impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office
‘HadCRUT4’ database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring
posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the
graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.
Predictions of
global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how
fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to
Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per
cent by 2050.
1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL
COOLING
In the
Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming
‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine
cover pictured here illustrates.
Temperatures
had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the
trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter
growing seasons.
Newsweek
magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are
hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs
that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures
of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards the
next ice age’.
While recently
every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the
Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating
outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended
dry spells and long freezes’.
The current
Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to
£7.6 billion a year – leading to a combined cost of £110 billion.
Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise
in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ‘biofuel’ ethanol.
Many scientists
say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean
cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much
the world will warm for a given level of CO2.
Yesterday Piers
Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that
global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with
good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates
unlikely.’
And Professor
Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of
Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global
surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’
James Annan, of
Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’,
recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly
untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction
in its last report in 2007.
Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr
David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by
Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything.
It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no
longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
I said the end
wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist,
David Bellamy
Challenged the
orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as
heretical for not toeing the line on global warming
This graph
shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone – like myself
– who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the
most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since its
creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global
warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the
observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.
The graph shows
a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to
be cooler.
The awkward
fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And
Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued
and, if anything, are going down.
As the graph
shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature
record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction.
Yet this
prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and
billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our industry less competitive
and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.
Man-made global
warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically,
the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with
the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new
theories.
Opponents of
man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my
cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met
Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a
presentation on global warming.
As the face of
natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enroll me in their cause. But when I read the so-called
evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to
‘sign up’.
I rapidly found
myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped
some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my
career at the BBC was over.
But scientific
theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science which casts carbon
as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.
Open
discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about
global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels
in the air
Geology tells
us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere
before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time,
there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere.
Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.
It is obvious
the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.
There is a
correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the
cart before the horse.
The evidence
shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.
Indeed, there
may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David
Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our
climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the
‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.
But the
scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to
justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves
more work.
The reality is
that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within
life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of
Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new
scientific orthodoxy.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2NmYpSfik