The Climategate Snowball

by Jason Stotts

I hate to post so much on climategate, but it just keeps snowballing bigger and bigger.  Today, the WSJ has a new piece up called “The Continuing Climate Meltdown” and, no, it’s not going to say that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is true.  I recommend reading the entire article, but here are the highlights:

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the “settled science” of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions.

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell’s corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as 6 billion people.

In Holland, there’s even a minor uproar over the report’s claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It’s 26%.

Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.

What makes this even funnier is that AGW alarmists are saying that the colder winters and heavy snow that the US is experiencing is perfectly consistent with AGW.  That’s interesting because even if it were true, they’d have no way to know it as they have no real evidence for AGW, except their misanthropy and hatred of progress.

  1. No Comments