The Data (But Not the Climate Changers) Show No Warming In the Last 15 Years…Now, What?


Climate change is a tottering edifice, its political sand foundation unstable in the face of too much evidence of its sponsor’s chicanery. Currently, reports from respected scientists with published data (unlike the U.N.’s climate crew) show the world’s average temperature hasn’t changed in the last 15 years. None of the warming alarmists seens to have noticed.

Will the ‘Coming of the New Ice Age’ End the Global Warming Era? will bring the curious reader up to date. For those interested, global warming is supported (in my opinion) by ‘scientists’ whose income depends on government grants, depending in turn on discovering what the government wants discovered and by environmentalists devoted to upgrading third world economies by degrading those of the rich world. None of this depends on science, so science is ignored or shouted down in subservience to these pieties. This 15 year non-warming is supported by NASA’s data, though not by NASA’s James Hansen. A visit to may be helpful for those wishing to know more.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Conspiracy, Corruption, Economics, Environment, Hypocrisy, Politics, Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Data (But Not the Climate Changers) Show No Warming In the Last 15 Years…Now, What?

  1. Michael Johnson says:

    You seriously believe that money is corrupting the *global warming* side?! There’s probably 10,000 times the money on the other side…

    You might find this article interesting:

    • jackcurtis says:

      Yeah, I believe that. More precisely, that science has become too much political science, a result of far too much of it being funded by and on account of government and thereby politicized. Your “Reason” citation doesn’t explore that, simply pointing to older science scandals as meretricious and asserting that the current debate is established science vs know-nothings. That isn’t a balanced presentation of the issue, ignoring the many highly esteemed scientists whose peer-reviwed work is in disagreement.
      Personally,I take most statements yeilding political effects cum grano salis, irrespective of the side they come from or the science involved…
      If the subject interests you particularly, you may enjoy visiting, as suggeted in the post. Thanks for the comment.

      • Michael Johnson says:

        Interesting link. While the effect of global warming is still a big unknown, and they could be correct that feedback mechanisms will prevent any drastic climate changes, I think it would be foolish to count on it if we don’t have to.

        As to your point that many scientists disagree with global warming, I wouldn’t call 2-3% “many”.

        Click to access 012009_Doran_final.pdf

    • Argus says:

      While your ref’d link is coming in (slow web) I’ll quickly say that yes, I DO believe that the Global Warming side is corrupt. Very corrupt. And money (pays their salaries, grants, and keeps ’em in business) (the alarmist ‘scientists’) is only part of it. The key to the whole arch is actually power—for which you can read control of production. No?

  2. jackcurtis says:

    Well, as the report leading to this post is of respectable work using the common data and reporting 15 years now without climate change in either direction, it seems reasonable to doubt that the claimed change has actually been established. Particularly since the data used by the ICCC crowd hasn’t been made public and is in at least some quarters, suspect. I don’t claim to know, but that’s the way I’ll bet.

    Assuming that the asserted change is real raises another set of issues more familiar to me: there is no money in our collapsing economy to fund massive activites in ameleoration and even more difficult, the current policies in use (cap and trade, etc.) don’t work. The time, magnitude and cost for developing technology to directly control CO2 output alone is presently out of sight, if one is serious about the “control” part.

    And looked at from my viewpoint–you can color me cynical–I note from the survey cited that, the closer those surveyed were to dependence on government grants, the more likely they were to agree with the positions the government wants. My reading doesn’t support a total 2% – 3% population in disagreement among scientists; I think – but haven’t researched – that it’s much larger than that. But with or without scientific agreement, the economic issues control decisions at the moment, from what I see.

    • Michael Johnson says:

      As far as the data is concerned, the BEST study verified it was valid. Considering their biggest donor was a Koch brother and many of the global warming skeptics were confident this study would prove the data was fudged, this is significant.

      What to do about it is quite another question. I agree that cap and trade won’t work and most alternate energies are still too expensive. This is why I’m a big nuclear proponent – especially Thorium. I also think we need to be much more energy efficient, not just for AGW but for economic reasons.

      Of course if all else fails, we might be able to pump SO2 into the upper atmosphere.

      • jackcurtis says:

        I don’t have enough money to wholesale sulfur dioxide on that scale, but if things go that direction, I’ll go partners with you selling gas masks… 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s