Is The BBC Becoming AGW Skeptic? -

Maybe. But not willingly.

Isn’t it kind of odd how the entire world was taken in by former VP Al Gore, the reigning High Priest of the Church of Global Warming of Modern Day Idiots, and his power point presentation masqueraded as a documentary? The fat b*****d had the audacity to use his “celebrity” to produce a “film” which nearly the entire world consumed as gospel when in fact the “evidence” of man’s contribution to planetary warming was actually manufactured and you all took it in. Shame on you.

Now, even the BBC is questioning the hysteria.

What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

For all the Chicken Little predictions of a global calamity of biblical proportions at the hands of that evil creature man, the earth has actually been cooling for nearly 2 years now. Sunspot activity has been nearly non-existent for the same period yet those who still cling to the fantasy that man is causing “global climate change” (the new flimflam term for this group hysteria) are continuing to blame man’s CO2 contributions which in reality is less than 3% of the total CO2 deposited in our atmosphere annually. If CO2 is actually to blame for warming, cooling, or stagnation, then shouldn’t we blame Willy the wale? The oceans are the largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. But you can’t tell those liberal egg-heads anything now, can you? They are, after-all, unquestionable.

As a matter of fact, even the BBC article had to include those still clinging to their hysterical fantasies.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

I don’t know about you, but to me these morons are beginning to sound like the adults in the Charlie Brown cartoons. “Wa Wa Wa”. (Or is it WAAAAAAAAA! like a baby. Somebody check Al’s diaper!)

How about someone from the touted IPCC? What do they have to say?

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

The BBC report has to then disclaim that Professor Latif is not becoming a skeptic. But we don’t need him to. All we are interested in is that he no longer proliferate the notion that man is causing global climate change when the evidence does not show it.

There are several factors contributing to the natural changes in our climate. Sunspot activity is only part of it. The oceanic currents are another.

Anyone with more than one functioning neuron (again that leaves out our resident DRONES*) knows that the world’s oceans are what regulate our temperatures. If the sun isn’t warming the oceans as much, doesn’t it make sense that the earth’s temperatures would drop? It certainly does to me and apparently it does to an expert in the BBC article.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So for all the announcements of the science being settled it turns out that the evidence isn’t. At least where it implicates man as the culprit. And if the evidence isn’t settled and it is possible (if not probable) that man’s CO2 contributions are NOT responsible, then why is Congress and the President insistent that Cap and Tax must be passed to save the planet? If you can answer that question then you can answer an even bigger one. Why are Democrats so in love with taxes?

And just for the record, Cap and Tax won’t curb man’s CO2 contribution. All it does is shift money around. It is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme that will inevitably bankrupt the United States. Perhaps that is the real goal.

So, is the BBC Becoming AGW skeptic? I doubt it. But if they are, it isn’t a willing situation.

I’m wondering if MSNoBodyCares will cover this revelation? Or CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and the dead trees for that matter?