Wed 22nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Is the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ consensus on the point of collapse? If so, this is just the right time for Chris Huhne to leave the Government

At the very least, let’s hear no more about this theory being ‘incontrovertible’

By on Monday, 6 February 2012

Nuns build a snowman in St Peter's Square. Some scientists have suggested that the cold snap is caused by global warming (Photo: PA)

Nuns build a snowman in St Peter's Square. Some scientists have suggested that the cold snap is caused by global warming (Photo: PA)

As the snow began falling on Saturday, I said to my wife “what do you want to bet that someone will cook up an explanation that all this is caused by global warming”? It was a joke: but when I looked at that morning’s Independent newspaper, there it was already, under the headline “Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?”

The bitterly cold weather sweeping Britain and the rest of Europe has been linked by scientists with the ice-free seas of the Arctic, where global warming is exerting its greatest influence.

A dramatic loss of sea ice covering the Barents and Kara Seas above northern Russia could explain why a chill Arctic wind has engulfed much of Europe and killed 221 people over the past week…

A growing number of experts believe complex wind patterns are being changed because melting Arctic sea ice has exposed huge swaths of normally frozen ocean to the atmosphere above.

The piece mentions the names of one or two of this growing number of experts. I’m glad that at least the piece didn’t say that this was a generally accepted consensus: for, the idea of an incontrovertible scientific consensus behind current ideas of anthropogenic global warming is itself coming under increasingly sceptical scrutiny from another “growing number of experts”, as you will see from a very interesting article which appeared a week or so ago in the Wall Street Journal.

The article is signed by a large number of scientists, whose names I now flourish before you to prove that they exist:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

The starting point of the article, headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (subheading, “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonise’ the world’s economy”) is the resignation from the American Physical Society of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, in a letter which begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” Dr Giaever had asked simply for the word “incontrovertible” to be removed: the APS refused. He rejoined: “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

The fact is, as the WSJ article says (and as I have said in this column before) that large numbers of scientists don’t accept this supposed consensus, and more and more of them are putting their heads above the parapet to say so. The reason is simple: that more and more “incontrovertible” facts are suggesting that the “consensus” has more to do with ideology than science: the most inconvenient truth, perhaps, is the fact that for more than a decade there has been no global warming to speak of, despite the fact that man-made CO2 continues to grow apace. The scientific establishment has no explanation of this, as emerged with wonderful irony in the so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009, and particularly in an email from a climate scientist called Kevin Trenberth, who wrote baldly (and he thought secretly) that “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The fact is that the whole anthropogenic warming theory is based not on observation but on computer models: in this case, it seems, computer models in which so-called “feedbacks” involving water vapour and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. It is, incidentally, interesting that none of the computer models which feed the theory, not one, predicted the present global warming pause: so why, one might ask, should one have any faith at all in their predictive powers about anything else?

Why, on a Catholic website, bother about this at all? Well, because we have been here before. Attacks on the Church over the Galileo affair have been going on for centuries, especially from the scientific community. Now, however, it is the scientific community which is recoiling from free scientific inquiry in the name of a supposedly “incontrovertible” belief based not on observation but on something else, which some have even called a “substitute religion”. And truly, for many, an environmentalism which warns of a man-made doom approaching us all has indeed begun to take on distinctly quasi-religious overtones: and certainly, an environmentalism of this kind is not going to allow its basic assumptions to be challenged. Man needs religion: and if he won’t have a true religion, he will tend willy-nilly to adopt a false one. As Cardinal Pell puts it “some of the more hysterical and extreme claims about global warming appear symptomatic of a pagan emptiness, of a Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature… Perhaps they’re looking for a cause that is almost a substitute for religion… In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”

The effects of these “extreme claims about global warming” have had a direct effect on our national life even to the extent of threatening our economy. Coincidentally, this could in fact be a moment when the government might do something about that. On Saturday, Chris Huhne, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, had to resign from the government. I can’t, I have to say, see exactly why what he is charged with is such a heinous crime that it may well put an end to his political career, but I’m bound to say that I hope either that it has, or at least that he never gets anywhere near “climate change” policy ever again.

He has already, for instance, spent hundreds of millions on disfiguring the landscape with wind turbines, of which there are currently 3,000 onshore and several hundred offshore. They produce just one to two per cent of the nation’s power. But there’s potentially a lot more where they came from. In December, Huhne announced that in 20 years’ time there were going to be altogether nearly another 30,000 of these useless things (which most of the time produce nothing at all), at a cost of heaven knows how many billions. Overall, he has steered the Government into making overall “climate change” commitments we almost certainly cannot afford. We may all, for other reasons, be returning to sanity: so now is the perfect time for the Government quietly to reverse all that.

  • Anonymous

    So GOD is so stupid and helpless that his powers of the cosmos now bow to the powers of the Human Monkeys he made? Climate change has done to religion, journalism and science what abusive priests did for religion.

  • Oliver-P

    It’s difficult to see where this argument is starting from. The fact it’s snowed a bit? It doesn’t need to be very cold for it to snow. Zero C can generally do the trick. And, although this is fairly irrelevant in terms of long term trends, it is very warm at the moment – and this is what we’re calling a ‘big freeze’. (The temperature is up to 8C today in parts of Britain, according to BBC site, and isn’t going to dip much below -3 tonight. That’s not cold.) I’m not sure why it isn’t also quite sensible to suggest that wind patterns are affected by temperature variations over broad areas of the globe. Yes, yes, there is no such thing as an incontrovertible theory: that is a contradiction in terms. And yes, environmentalism has at times acquired pseudo-messianic characteristics. And yes, the loss of the absolute truth of God leads people to swallowing all sorts of nonsense. Still, the rise in average global temperatures over time is not a theory; it is a measurement. The collapse of the polar ice is not a theory; it is an observation. Local variations in British (or Roman, re. the picture) weather from a bit nippy to rather warm can be something of a distraction from the bigger picture. And, in terms of the bigger picture, we are looking at what might seem tiny variations in temperature leading to potentially catastrophic effects. The Goldilocks zone in which we live is a very narrow band in terms of human tolerances. Complacency is not an option should we wish to preserve for future generations a reasonable climatic quality of life on Earth.

  • Oliver-P

    I think you’ll find God gave man dominion over all the Earth – not quite the cosmos. And while he was at it we got free will as well. Earth beware. (In other words, it’s our little place in the cosmos, and if we mess it up, that’s our look out.)

  • MDM

    Why is Mr Oddie so obsessed with climate change? This is the 5th blog of his on the subject in about 3 months. Could it be that he knows the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is a resounding “no”? It seems that the smaller this already tiny minority of people become, the louder they have to shout that everyone else is wrong.

  • Thejaffer

    The truth will prevail. CO2 is innocent. OK!

  • Anonymous

    Those of you who have followed the CO2 global warming debate with a truly open mind on the internet for the last couple of
    years now will be well aware of the wealth of evidence which more than
    amply demonstrates that alleged man made global warming as driven by CO2
    is a scientific fraud. It is perhaps therefore no coincidence that last
    week the key UK political figurehead of those promoting policy to
    theoretically prevent / control CO2 driven run away global warming has
    himself been charged with what is basically fraud, although be it only
    technically in some peoples eyes. Perhaps any politicians of any party
    who cling to the CO2 warming theory are themselves accomplices in ”
    perverting the course of justice “, the social justice which expects the
    poor to be able to maintain the basic fundamental rights to be warm /
    dry / and have a full belly !

  • Edd_hind

    Is this what they call Godawful journalism then?

  • cesium12

     I imagine that you did not read the article in the WSJ.  Nor have you perused the website by the 31 thousand plus scientists who disagree with your musings.  The IPCC is headed by a railroad engineer with a degree in economics and you are the one playing Goldilocks.

  • Oliver-P

    I think it’s troubling but also instructive, that, as I think, many old people do struggle with these big shifts in paradigms. And conversely, many people, young or otherwise, will latch onto big new ideas in ways which are comparably irrational, although in this case perhaps better motivated. It seems to me that there is a lot of anger, including on the part of the old, that what one ‘knows’ is wrong, that one’s models, one’s ways of modelling reality to and for oneself, do not accord to reality as observed without interest or prejudice. (And this is not to say that, re. the subject of climate change, there are not interests at stake on the various sides.) I think that what we are seeing with Mr Oddie is not so much a rational portrayal of a reasonable point of view; it is rather the death throws of a false ideology. It is very difficult for a person, and perhaps a generation, or interest group otherwise constituted as a collective, to accept both that what they ‘know’ is wrong and, moreover, that they have blindly or otherwise been the cause, whether actively or passively, through what they have done or through what they have failed to do, of what may be - emphasize: may be – an impending catastrophe.

  • Oliver-P

    A: Feel free to imagine what you like; yes I have read it. B. Wow! A railroad engineer with a degree in economics! Like a proper degree! And in economics too! Gee wizz! (Go figure.) C. Where in that post am I doing anything other than suggest that in terms of long-term trends, average global temperatures are changing and we need to worry about this? I don’t even seem to be mentioning man-made causes, aside from acknowledging this as a theory?

  • Revcounter

    The UK, and even Europe is not the world the words Global Warming should give Oddie a clue here.

  • geronimo

    oliver, it’s warm in Britain, but large parts of the NH have brass monkeys’ weather and have been for months.

  • Oliver-P

    This is true. But two thoughts. 1: The article is contextualized from the first par by the author’s account of his looking out of his window and then being sarcastic to his wife about theories of climate change. 2. You can have brass monkeys at quite a range of temperatures. In terms of wrapping up warm, it may seem there’s not a lot of difference between, say, minus 17 and minus 19. In terms of global averages over the course of the years, that little difference (obviously not between -17 and -19) starts killing people – and then some.

  • m francis

    it would appear as your surname would suggest that your head is surely up it.

  • Anonymous

    While God did give us dominion over the earth, he instigated the seasons, and in a wider sense, the climate. Wherever the boundaries of our understanding of this lies however, one thing is for certain, he did not give us control over the time or manner of Jesus’ 2nd coming, and will certainly not allow man to affect that time/event by ‘man-made climate armageddon’ (AGW). This means that if CO2 did affect temperature, we could never burn enough fossil fuels to emit enough CO2 to bring about man’s destruction. The flip side of this is that as God created the earth and all that is in it, including fossil fuels, and declared them ‘good’, he certainly would not have created the life-giving carbon (CO2/O2) cycle which is an integral part of it such that it was ‘bad’.

  • David Bailey

    This is an extraordinary saga – well told by William Oddie above. Since I have a science background, I was very curious when, in late 2009, I heard that a batch of emails between climatologists had been hacked and made available by Wiki Leaks. Since this website was famous for releasing information about the misdeeds of bankers and of armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wondered why these emails were worth their consideration!

    The truth is, that these emails demonstrate a lamentable lapse from normal scientific standards – with discussions about blocking papers from publication just because they presented evidence against Global Warming, and hiding or even destroying data, rather than letting others, thought to be skeptical, from viewing the information.

    This in turn lead me into a whole series of websites that discuss the many failings of ‘climate science’, including:

    Doubtful adjustments to the raw temperature data – exposed by Anthony Watts.

    Bogus statistical arguments – exposed by Steve McIntyre.

    Extreme reliance on computer models that seem to have zero predictive power

    A string of failed apocalyptic predictions – see

  • Sth4

    Yes, and He certainly wouldn’t have created cancer and earthquakes either if they were bad, right? I think you’ll find its a bit more complicated than that. No one is saying that the natural carbon cycle is ‘bad’ – its man’s manipulation of the delicate balances involved in it that is the problem.

  • Sth4

    Its an interesting question. I know someone who is currently writing their psychology doctoral thesis on the subject of motivations behind climate change denial.

  • Mashman

    that pun was holy inappropriate

  • m francis

    yet another jedi knight looking for attention.

  • Oliver-P

    That is a strange argument. All was good before the fall. Then the fall happened. It is demonstrable that people have contaminated their environment before now so that they have, as communities, died. It is also demonstrable that seasonal patterns have throughout the millennia varied considerably – and this in the relative absence of human influence. Note the Egyptian Sphinx, for example, and the weathering through heavy rain evinced there. Note migrational patterns of humans over the last few tens of thousands of years – some of which require land bridges no longer extant. The Earth changes. The climate changes. Some form of humanity will probably survive. And many will die. The habitats of many humans will be destroyed. It is important to distinguish between ‘man’, in the sense of the species, and ‘men’, or ‘people’, in the sense of individuals who will and have already died as a consequence of climate change, whether or not man’s activities are a contributory factor. God declared the world good at the point of creation. That was some billions of years ago. God intervenes in history, of course, but he is not going to take away our free will. (By way of parallel, one or two fissile elements are also put on this earth as good, and that in itself does not prevent self-destruction – through the will, not of God, but of man.)

  • John


    If you are not a christian please stay off the site. That would be anyone who thinks we control the climate. Is that simple enough :)

  • Eddiearuda

    About a week ago the UEA released a report stating that the next solar cycle would be weak. They even speculated that it could be as serious as the Dalton or Maunder Minimum. They then proffered an extremely lame spin: CO2 would save the day by limiting the cooling to an amount so small as to be statistically meaningless.

    The warmists rarely debate as they almost always lose. Jim Hansen at NASA failed miserably in his prediction in 1988 that we would see warming by now. They employ an endpoint fallacy by setting 1850 as there starting point. That is when we exited the little ice age, the coldest time period of the current Holocene interglacial. In fact, temps of the current interglacial peaked thousands of years ago.

  • dancer

    You might try learning enough physics to understand the mechanisms in play. You have more snow as the cold air hits warmer-than-before air. Warmer air hold more water which precipitates out as more (warmer and wetter) snow, as in huge snowfalls on the east end of large lakes, such as the Great Lakes. And, as the air warms the patterns of highs and lows shifts causing large shifts in wind patterns meaning that areas which had formerly been warmed by air tempered over warm water now get colder air (the Gulf Stream keeps Europe warmer than it should be for its latitude, remember most of Europe is in latitudes matching Canada’s latitudes). Those are large, but still local areas. Remember, the warming is global and only requires a few degrees of temperature change. And as for human-caused warming, this is hardly the first time humans have altered the climate, although with more local effect historically, note the loss of trees in Greece and in Mohenjo-Daro thousand of years ago with fewer people and primitive technologies compared to today, yet the trees have not grown back and the one forested areas around Mohenjo-Daro are still desert. Think how many more people we have now and how much more burning. Do you really think we can just go on forever without regard for our effect on the world’s climate? I guess so.

  • Sth4

    I am a Christian. If you are suggesting anyone who accepts the scientific consensus on climate change is not a Christian, then:
    1. ‘No true Scotsman’ is a logical falacy
    2. You might want to tell the Vatican - “We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases” :)

  • Donald Hutton

    The statement that “for more than a decade there has been no global warming to speak of” is a lie.  Stop repeating it.  Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.


     What I want to know is why anyone believes that the recent warming trend was unnatural ?  There were warming periods in the Roman era and in the middle ages.  Were they unnatural?

  • Jimmyball

    To even take part in a debate is to accept that there is an issue to debate. You can debate what we should do in response to climate change, but debating its existence is like debating whether or not the earth is round.

  • Mashman

    jedi knight? no, i wasn’t allowed to be in star wars because i tested positive for droids

  • Ilma630

    You missed the point, which was that no matter what man does with the good gifts given to us by Gid in his created earth, nothing we do with them can alter the course of His plan and therefore our ultimate destiny. I didn’t say anything about good stewardship, which itself is a Godly activity, just that nothing we can do will alter the course of His creation or will.

    I do think though that to refuse to use new energy discoveries, e.g. shale gas, and calling them’bad’ is akin to throwing God’s gift back in his face. Where would we be now if we had refused to utilise coal, oil and natural gas? Most likely still in abject poverty, with mass starvation and disease.

  • David Bailey

     That graph, if I am not mistaken, is one produced by averaging each point with the 5 previous years and the 5 following years. This has the effect of seeming to continue the temperature rise of the 1990′s into the next decade, when in fact the temperature has leveled out!

    Averaging noisy data like that is often a useful strategy, but it can also be used to confuse!

  • Peter-G

    Oh dear Oliver. So, “many old people do struggle with these big shifts in paradigms” do they. Old people do suffer from years of experience, which is an affliction that makes them suspicious of people who talk of paradigm shifts. There is no argument about climate change. The question is:”What do our emissions of CO2 contribute to that change?”. Here there is only hypothesis (APG) backed by computer models. The science to drive the models is incomplete. There are no observations to support the hypothesis, indeed what there is contradicts the hypothesis. The models fail to predicted the current lack of warming. You cannot use such models to predict the future. Hopefully politicians are aware of this although ours are severely technically challenged. If they are aware then there must be another agenda in the policy to fight APG. Why do they want to move away from fossil fuels? Why are they prepared to be likened to King Canute with their climate control  thermostat? Usually it is money or power or both. So let’s start looking. Oliver, you write very well but think very poorly.

  • Puqspaal

    All of them bought by Corporation and of coarse the catholic church would know all about corporation and keeping people quite…..Have you gone for a walk lately, and let the environment tell you the truth?  So next I guess the rubbish you talk next will be Revelations has no meaning?

  • Yanna pavwah

    For Nigel’s sake it’s “Revelation”! Not the book of Revelatons”!

  • Anonymous

    @Sth4:disqus  says ‘ I know someone who is currently writing
    their psychology doctoral thesis on the subject of motivations behind
    climate change denial.’ And Richard Feynman said…’
    I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned areexamples of what I would like to call cargo cult science…’.You can read an adaption of his CALTECHspeech here -> Feynman had a withering contempt for psychologists and for good reason. They are the witch doctorsof our age and your friend’s thesis has absolutely nothing to do with science. Ditto thoseso called climatologists who warn of impending man-made catastrophe induced by burning fossilfuels. Sorcery indeed.

  • Oconnord

    This whole debate often reminds me of the scene in “The Matrix” where Agent Smith puts humans’ sense of self importance in it’s place.

    ” I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.”

    Of course it’s just a movie but even if we loosed every nuclear bomb on the planet, life will live in the long term, it will carry on with only a hiccup. 99% of species that have existed are extinct, we’ll be the only one’s who managed to wipe themselves out for having the ability to plan into the future. And then make decisions which will kill us.

  • Windy

    The graph that you link has the Y axis labeled “Global Land Temperature Anomaly”. The last time I checked, land comprises only only 29% of the total surface of the Earth. The difference between science and religion is that in science we
    establish a hypothesis and then also establish parameters of
    falsification for that hypothesis and then we test the hypothesis. Have
    you done this? You should.

    Did you know that the MET Office scientists already began testing the IPCC
    climate models for accuracy and published their results in the 2009 NOAA “State of the Climate”? The
    Met scientists established that any (“any” includes cherry picked start
    dates) 15 year period with no significant temperature rise would falsify
    the IPCC climate models at the 95% level. Please keep in mind when looking at the graph below, that the IPCC climate models predict a .2 to .3 degC/decade temperature rise in surface temperature. So how are the IPCC models doing after 15 years. Here is a comparison of BEST (Muller) temperature anomaly trend for “land only” and HadCRUT3V (Phil Jones) “land and sea” trend.

    As you can see the “land + sea” measurement (green line) shows no significant warming since 1997 when according to the IPCC models we should have seen a .3 to .45 degC increase in warming. There are many other claimed “signs of runaway warming” that climate scientists predicted, such as more hurricanes or warning in the Troposphere above the tropics, that are not materializing. While such parameters of falsification are being ignored by some, more and more people are taking note of failed predictions.

  • Sth4

    Feynman was referring to the pseudo-science of parapsychology and the psychoanalytical approaches of Freud and Jung. Psychoanalysis is not psychology and even a GCSE psychology student could tell you that. Feynman did not have a problem with real cognitive and behavioural psychology. And he certainly wouldn’t have thought of climate science as sorcery. No sensible person would.

  • Jim

    so, you followed science on the internet?   if you search for proof of aliens, you’ll find lots of information “proving” all sorts of “hidden facts” that the “mainstream doesn’t want you to know.”

    you seem to think all the scientists are wrong, and all the bloggers focused on conspiracy theory and political rhetoric know more than the people who actually study climate science.

    Did you know that most of the conservative think tanks who publish information refuting climate science are funded by oil interests?   don’t believe me?  look it up on the internet.   

    still don’t believe me….   exactly.   

    you can find “evidence” to anything you want to believe if you look for it.   

    bloggers who are not scientists, or think tanks who have a financial interest in refuting the science are not trustworthy sources of information.

    If i have a medical problem, i will trust a trained doctor to give me the best opinion on the diagnosis, and the solution.

    if my car doesn’t work, i trust mechanics who know what they are doing.

    if the climate is changing…. the best people to trust…. who know most about the issue are the  climate scientists.

  • Jim

    are you aware that the petition project is a fraud? 

  • ozonator

    Y’all extremist Republicans and Christians aren’t going to Heaven on the graves of these good people.  “Philippines Earthquake 2012: 6.8 Quake Kills 43, Looting Runs Rampant” (By IBTIMES STAFF REPORTER;, 2/6/12)

    With condolences, 

    I predicted this quake in




    “B). … the specifics of the Giulaino – Gansu Model (1/15 – 21/12) of extreme AGW earthquake warnings among tectonic energy lines with individual predictions for regions (magnitude in Richters) are: … 3). Taiwan (6+) – Philippines (7+) – Guam (5+) – Vanuatu (7+) – Samoa (6+) – Tonga (6+) … n= 33. … C).  … 4). 4-week model … Philippines” (“GBRWE 1/15 – 21/12”s Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities”; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 1/15 – 21/12, 1/14/12).

  • Anonymous

     All the info I get off the internet is from reputable sources, I don’t do aliens or other conspiracy theories like chemtrails, I am a trained automotive engineer, most of the shit climate scientist come out with can be debunked on 1970s secondary modern O level science anyway.  Explain Building 7 as well, its all lies from the establishment and quasi-religion  when it comes to climate science.

    My climate info comes from links like this !

  • W Oddie


  • W Oddie

    I am very interested to learn that I have written 5 blogs on this subject; I would love to read them. Could you give me details?

  • W Oddie

    “death throws”: what’s that? sounds like a moribund shot-putter

  • MDM

    2. (ok, so this one is actually about bees but you do talk about CO2 not being a threat to the environment, “global warming propaganda” and “climategate”)
    5. This one.
    I’ll look forward to your next one in say… a months time? If we’re lucky you’ll slip a cheeky reference into your next blog later this week.

  • Paul A

    Excuse me for saying so, but this
    article is simply nuts. Is Oddie seriously proposing that because it is cold in
    parts of Europe global warming is not taking place? 2011 was the 9th or 11th
    warmest year globally (depending on which temperature record you use) putting
    it is the top 10% of warm years, and the warmest year recorded when La Nina
    conditions predominate. 2010 was one of the warmest years ever recorded. These
    are observations, not models. There is no pause in the warming that cannot be
    accounted for by the internally variability such as La Nino/El Nino
    oscillations. Other observations to note – cooling of the upper atmosphere
    consistent with a greenhouse gases trapping more energy in the lower
    atmosphere, satellite observations recording a decrease in infrared radiation
    escaping into space, a greater increase on night-time  temperatures compared to day-time consistent
    with a warming induced by greenhouse gases.


    The WSJ ‘article’ (actually a letter)
    signed by 16 scientists most of who are outside the field of climate science was
    rebutted by a letter signed by 32 climate scientists.


    Oddie expresses incredulity at ‘feedbacks’,
    but we do know that warmer air has a greater capacity for holding water vapour,
    and how can we explain the end of the glacial periods without feedbacks
    (including in that instance CO2 acting as a feedback to minor solar forcing)?
    Can we, for example, account for the end of the period of global freezing known
    as ‘Snowball Earth’ without the influence of CO2 and feedbacks?


    Contrary to Oddie’s assertions, the
    scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has become ever stronger over
    the years despite being probably the most scrutinised and debated area of
    science there is.

  • Sth4

    Well yes, you could call a conspiracy theorist blog a “reputable source” if you want to, or you could read a real one like this

  • FrankG

    One could write the same comment about your article, but I suspect you’d want a fuller explanation :)

  • W Oddie

    “Is Oddie seriously proposing that because it is cold in parts of Europe global warming is not taking place?” Well, no, if you actually read the article you will see that I’m not saying that at all. The trouble with people like you is that you are so sure that you are infallibly right that you pay no attention whatever to anything anyone else says. You will never change your mind because you will never look at the evidence. That’s actually what the article argues. Why not read it, before you sound off in your infallible way? Your attitude is simply pre-copernican: you know what you OUGHT to be believe, and by golly you’re going to stick to it.