Twenty years of pausing global temperatures since 1998 are casting increasing doubt on the suggestion that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate emergency and leading to runaway heating. Such doubt, of course, kicks away any justification for installing a Net Zero regime that is set to cause massive societal and economic dislocation. Needless to say, these concerns are nowhere to be seen in the end of year reporting of temperature trends that highlight increasingly improbable rises partly based on non-climate corruptions such as from nearby airport runways. All of this cherry-picking is taken from surface datasets that have removed a 1998-2012 standstill using retrospective upward adjustments.
In a recently published paper, Nicola Scafetta, a climate research scientist at the University of Naples, noted that the Met Office HadCRUT global dataset recorded warming of 0.03°C per decade during the hiatus years of 2000-2014. As Daily Sceptic has reported, there have been two retrospective adjustments of HadCRUT since then. In 2013, Scafetta noted that HadCRUT version 4 increased the warming to 0.08°C per decade. HadCRUT5 further adjusted the 2000-14 figure to supply warming of 0.14°C per decade, using, notes the science blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ), “the computer model-infilling method”.
Within the last decade, continues NTZ, the 2000-14 temperature trend has been changed from a pause to strong warming. “After all, when the data don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the data,” concludes NTZ. All global surface datasets use similar measurements, and all have made recent upward adjustments to their global heating calculations.
Needless to say, the BBC led from the front in the battle to weaponise the 2022 results from the surface databases. It reported the view of scientists from the EU weather service Copernicus that last year, “saw a pattern of global warming that has become the new normal”. Global temperatures were said to be approximately 0.3°C higher last year than the 1991-2020 reference period. According to Samantha Burgess, a Copernicus deputy director, the global temperature will rise another 0.4°C within the decade under a “simple linear extrapolation”.
Of course it depends what temperature database you are extrapolating from. So far as the surface measurements are concerned, Scafetta is unimpressed. In general, the surface temperature records, and the homogenisation algorithms used to adjust them, present several problems that may have exaggerated the warming. In his considered view, the integrity of the records and, therefore, the ability to correctly determine the global warming trends over the last 120 years, “should be questioned”.
Satellite measurements are used extensively in both meteorology and climatology, and an accurate record of global temperatures is available going back to 1979. These measurements avoid most of the corruptions and inaccuracies of surface measurements. But they are largely ignored. Last year, Google AdSense ‘demonetised’ a web page detailing the latest monthly figures on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims”. As I have regularly reported, global warming reported by satellites is considerably less than that shown by the popular surface figures. According to the satellite record, since 1979, the planet has warmed about 0.6°C with most of the warming occurring before 1998. Since then, the planet has warmed little more than 0.1°C. As can be seen in the latest graph below, the only significant warming this century was around the middle of the last decade, and it was caused by a particularly powerful natural El Nino oscillation. The early century pause, absent now from the adjusted surface datasets, is clearly shown, as is the latest 100 month and counting plateau.
In a recent essay published in Watt Up With That? titled “Good 2022 climate news that the MSM didn’t tell you“, the science writer Javier Vinos noted that global warming is slowing down. The 15-year rate to the late 1990s was very high, reaching 0.35°C per decade. The average over the entire period of satellite records is 0.13°C per decade, but the long-term trend has fallen from 1.6°C per century to 1°C per century. Vinos notes that the long-term trend has been achieved at a time when CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Of course, the temperature wars are part of the battle to persuade populations to sign up to the command-and-control Net Zero project. Linking higher temperatures to increased CO2 levels, and suggesting it is all due to the 4% human contribution of all CO2 entering the atmosphere, has been an easy green scare to sell. But the political tactic relies on temperatures continue to play ball. It is becoming obvious that global warming ran out of steam some time ago. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has warming properties, but the historical and paleoclimatic record does not provide any conclusive evidence that the gas is the main regulator of temperature in the atmosphere. Other, often little understood influences seem to play a much more important role. So far as the gas is concerned, there is evidence that its warming effect is logarithmic, and this warming falls dramatically when it rises above certain atmospheric levels. In fact, this proposition provides a more convincing and logical explanation for most climate observations going back 600 million years.
The idea that humans cause all or most changes in the climate by burning fossil fuel is an unproven science hypothesis. There is not a single credible science paper that proves it. The Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer recently noted that if there was one, there would be endless citation of the papers demonstrating this proof. Instead, “there is obfuscation and deafening silence”, he said.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Chris was invited onto Richard Tice’s Talk TV show last Sunday and they discussed a number of issues arising from recent Daily Sceptic articles. These included the Bangladesh and Pakistan floods and the corrupted surface temperature datasets. Of particular interest was the curious case of the highly-prized 40.3°C record set for the U.K. last July 19th and the fact it lasted for only 60 seconds half way down the runway at RAF Coningsby.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The scepticism on vaccine death numbers from Toby Young has become almost vanishingly small.
The only way you can compare deaths for vaccines with Covid to get a risk/benefit metric is with the same standards for vaccines as for deaths attributed to Covid.
How many deaths occur within 28 days of a Covid vaccine? The government have flat out refused to provide this data, saying that all vaccine related deaths are recorded under the MHRA’s Yellow Card system. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing what the effects of this experimental treatment are at least until the clinical trials have concluded.
The resistance to this incoming tyranny is starting to look infinitesimally small.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/03/30/f-o-i-request-shows-2207-died-within-28-days-of-having-the-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-during-february/
F.O.I Request shows 2,207 died within 28 days of having the Covid Vaccine in Scotland during February
It’s not quite correct WRT just during Feb… But I think it IS over 500 a month dying WITH experimental COVID jab in just Scotland alone..
I took that FOI to mean since the beginning of vaccination. I then went to the governments coronavirus website
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
and from there used 9th December as the start of vaccination and found that approximately 3,300 had died in Scotland within 28 days of a positve test over the same period. This was a while ago I did this though so may require double checking.
The above link was sent in reply to a comment I made earlier in the week.
Others looked and it seemed the timeframe (just one month) was off but the numbers weren’t
I’m guessing we still need the numbers for dying without COVID and without being jabbed.
Thanks for posting the Daily Expose article, I was going to do so myself. I posted it yesterday as well.
I want to add the caveat again that there is no way of verifying if that document is real or not. The only way to be certain would be to submit a FOI request yourself.
I don’t know if Daily Expose is a reputable website either, so we need to be careful with things like this before making any claims.
With that said:
Extrapolating the quoted Scottish numbers across the whole of the UK would give 25,524 deaths.
63,182,000 – UK population
5,463,300 – Scottish population
Death rate in Scotland for the entire population = 0.00040397 (2,207/5,463,300)
0.00040397*63,182,000 = 25,524
If anyone has a better way of doing it, let me know.
The problem with this is the age breakdown.
This is an issue that gets rapidly bigger the younger people get so using an all-age average isn’t going to be that accurate.
I agree, it’s a mess.
Also, I feel extremely bad even talking about this. I hope no-one thinks I’m ever being callous. This BS is breaking my heart, which is why I’m doing all I can to warn people.
But it’s not just deaths. As Sucharit Bhakdi has pointed out – less severe outcomes can also be associated with a thrombosi(e)s.
Govt .Yellow Card Vaccine deaths and Adverse Reactions can be found in The Light newspaper monthly.
The best alternative is to avoid a jab.
Yup: that’s my strategy!
The more newspaper headlines containing the words Vaccine and Risk the better.
It just gets worse doesn’t it ?
I mean we’ve gone from complete denial that there was any risk to the vaccines – to admitting that there maybe a tiny risk – to now offering a completely different vaccine to under 40’s because of a potential risk of blood clots from the previous vaccine that was being given to all the over 40’s.
Anyone out there still eager to roll-up there sleeves for this vaccine must be completely insane. I wouldn’t take an asprin from these people if it was offered to me nevermind an experimental jab that appears to have so many question marks hanging over it.
Nobody has started on the more “normal” thrombosis associated with all the spike protein producing vaccines yet. Obviously COVID can also cause these….but it’s quite hard to catch COVID right now. You can’t avoid them in the vaccines though.
“I wouldn’t take an asprin from these people”
In the end – detail apart – this is the sane position, given the stack of reasons not to trust the political and financial issues involved and the sheer lies that have been told.
I mean – buying ‘guaranteed’ snake oil from the producers who have been given immunity against harms on the recommendation of a PR firm that has spent billions on shares in it?
You’d have to be mad.
To Toby: I think they meant when they say the risks outweigh the benefits in the under 40s is that VIPIT is more likely (death or not….even if not death, a debilitating stroke that leaves you long term disabled aged under 40 has to be included as a major harm) than a healthy under 40 dying of COVID.
Of course, healthy doesn’t mean low risk. The obese are at far greater risk, so the younger, slimmer and fitter you are, the greater the relative risk of the vaccine. If you are a fit 40, 50 or 60 something, the vaccine may still not make any sense.
And then of course there are all the other risks of the vaccine, that nobody mentions. The people spending a week or more in bed. That’s not normal! And that’s at the mild end of the spectrum.
Its not just deaths. You don’t want to end up in hospital for a vaccine you don’t really need even if it doesn’t kill you.
“This might not kill you but you might need 2 weeks in hospital to fix it” isn’t appealing.
The 2 people i know of that have had clotting issues weren’t killed. One ended up in hospital for tests, the other was there over a week until it resolved.
And all of this for a vaccine thats far less effective than the others.
“resolved” – If you’ve small blood clots in the brain, do they not invariably do irreparable damage? Perhaps the impact is not readily discernable, but you’re less of the person you were, and the specific damage may take its toll years later.
Wrong. The Az and JJ vaccines may have an immediate effect because of their delivery system. But in the medium and longer term the mRNA vaccines are far more pernicious. The immune system can eventually identify the problem with the AZ and JJ vaccines. But the gel surrounding the mRNA vaccines disguises the effect and the problem may well appear much later in say the brain before the immune system attacks with potentially deadly consequences.
Yes and people will probably end up on lifelong medication for problems they didn’t have before taking the vaccine.
If I was still under 40 I’d be demanding my freedom, not an alternative jab.
My group of sheep (friends) are in the 40 bracket, boy will they be glad they took the AZ poison these last two weeks….
That’s OK; I’m in my 60s and I have a great alternative to AZ – nada!
Me too – absolutely no chance of me having any of the so-called vaccines.
The more I read the more I disagree with them.
Why anyone who is otherwise healthy wish to have these is beyond my comprehension.
i agree. What is also baffling is how little it’s mentioned that the Jabz are being rolled out in spring and summer for a winter seasonal disease!
Could this be the amazing reason why they are so ‘effective’.?
Funny that this news didn’t come out just before “Super Thursday”, when it might have slightly flattened the wave of “vaccine” “success” Boris’s party was riding.
Funny too, that the bad news is being broken on results day, when so many people are distracted by the theatre of party politics.
What an excellent opportunity to ‘help’ those in a particular populous country where the media say there is a crisis by giving them all the dodgy AZ jabs that would have been given to under 40s… and when I say giving, I mean not challenging them to fulfil the UK’s order and agreeing that they can keep the stuff for themselves…
‘If we assume that at least a half of the 35 million Britons who’ve been inoculated got an AZ jab…’ – Why don’t you look it up? It’s 22.6M AZ jabs (twice the amount of Pfizer). There are a ‘reported’ 49 blood clots biut it’s not just blood clots when calculating risk vs. reward of the vaccines. There’s anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, blindness, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and capillary leak syndrome to consider. The Yellow Card currently shows 1102 deaths immediately following vaccination – that’s 6.3/day for AZ and 2.6/day for Pfizer (longer rollout). There were 9,942 (with multiple AEs) single Yellow Card reports in the week April 21-29th alone – which represents only 0.3-0.6% of reporting. For a 0-19 year old, the chances of dying of COVID is 0.00015%. Chances of dying from the vaccine – 0.2%. While the true number of deaths from vaccines (and this won’t include those who developed and died ‘from’ COVID as a result of a weakened immune system following the vaccine – which will go down as COVID deaths) won’t be known until it’s too late for the majority – anyone can look at the ONS and Yellow Card data and judge for themselves. What you will find is that the death toll from COVID for a healthy under 65 year old for the whole of 2020 (Eng & Wales) was 1,549 – once you factor in the 33% over reporting and the under reporting of the Yellow Card, only the highly innumerate would conclude that the rewards of a vaccine outweigh the risks. A healthy under 65 year old is statistically more likely to die from the vaccine than COVID.