It’s certainly true that the current, um, pause in the relentless warming of the planet (or parts of the planet) doesn’t tell us very much one way or the other about the larger picture on climate change, but the Spectator’s Rod Liddle has a point when he blogs this:
December was cold too, if you remember – yet apparently not included in the figures for 2009 which, if you recall, were jubilantly announced as being the fifth hottest since records began in the middle of November – ie when there was still 11 per cent of the year to go, the coldest bit. None of this disproves man made climate change, of course – but it does surely bring us back to that argument about whether or not we’re qualified to comment. I am well aware that one cold winter proves or disproves nothing; it is the mere blink of an eye, almost an irrelevance. But then, it wasn’t me who said that 2010 was going to be a scorcher and that this was indicative of man-made climate change. 2010 is also the blink of an eye, in the scheme of things. But as I say, the same people who insist that we are going to burn to a crisp and all the polar bears will die told us, authoritatively, that 2010 was going to be a scorcher for this very reason. So far it isn’t. So far they are very wrong. And could not be more wrong. This is why we should question their calculations and why we have the right to do so.
The warmists spend a lot of time putting passing phenomena down to climate change. Biter bit on this occasion, it would seem.
On a not entirely unrelated issue, the EU Referendum’s Richard North continues with his (distinctly hostile) investigation of the busy life of engineer-turned-IPCC supremo, Rajendra Pachauri (you can find a large number — trust me — of posts on the topic on the site). Lawyers appear to be hovering, however, and Pachauri has hit back, at least by implication, here. Meanwhile North is promising “a major piece” in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend. So far as this topic is concerned, things really are heating up . . .