These two graphs from a major article in The Economist (see source below) clearly indicate that:
- Global Warming occurred between 1985 and 1998, but Earth's temp has remained fairly steady for 15 years now!
- The predictions of Global Warming models are incorrect.
- The yellow lines indicate the year when Al Gore and IPCC received the Nobel Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" (the bold is mine.)
Now The Economist from Europe, where the core support of Global Warming alarmism is located, has provided some reasonable perspective which shows that:
- There is no denying that some Global Warming (GW) has taken place.
- GW has remained stable for at least a decade.
- Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predict the wrong trend.
- GW did not increase despite the billions of tons of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 emissions
- Arctic ice does melt to unusual levels in the summer months but no appreciable sea level rise has been recorded.
- Nobody knows what the real effects of an increasingly less possible GW are.
- "Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise."
- "The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now."
- Despite all the work on [the planet's] sensitivity [to carbon dioxide emissions,] no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C.
- The science that points towards a sensitivity lower than models have previously predicted is still tentative. The error bars are still there. The risk of severe warming—an increase of 3°C, say—though diminished, remains real.
- Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. (Thank you for this. I am sorry to inform you that California, Hawaii, The Blue Planet Foundation and several "environmentalists" do not subscribe to reason, cost-effectiveness analysis or The Economist.)
- Good policies—strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy—are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low.
- Put a price on carbon and ensure that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come.