The UK Daily Mail has a big spread on the scandal of the oh-so-quiet release:
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
By David Rose
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
PUBLISHED: 21:42 GMT, 13 October 2012
UPDATED: 01:21 GMT, 14 October 2012
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
Six months ago data was released with much fanfare, headlines, shrieks, groans, and moans--a choral cacophony of doom--which "showed" that the previous six month period for which data had just been collected and collated (up to the end of 2010) had been particularly warm. But oh-so-sadly the last six months data have reversed that temperature rise. Oh dear. Never mind.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year. Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.Philip Jones of the Climategate -"make the data up"-scandal continues to cling on as all true believers ought. He needs more time. But give him just one reading for one short period that shows an up tick in temperature and old Phil will have his brazen doomsday trumpet out again in an instant. For Phil and his fellow scaremongers temperature data is either good or bad. Good data shows rising temperatures. Bad data shows steady or falling temperatures. Phil only needs one good data point and he will hit the headlines insisting that the world is about to collapse. But faced with fifteen years of bad data old Phil wants to see multiple decades before he will change his mind. Of course this is a rather clever career move, since Phil will have long departed this dying planet before his histrionic febrile prognostications can be disproved to his own satisfaction.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. . . . The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’. . . . . Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’There you have it. The warming is actually going on--but it's just being suppressed in the data by natural forces which we don't understand. The story is getting thinner and thinner. But there is now far too much money at stake for this thing to go quietly into the night. Not only are careers at stake, but personal fortunes. So we expect the climate "scientists" will gradually coalesce around a common belief that we will need at least one hundred years of bad data before we ought to be allowed to give up on "suppression" theories.