1. Special K | 10.10.09

It would useful if the major centers involved
Reported their observations to the daily press–
Nine out of ten times (by rough estimate)
We’re told global warming is now in progress.

And why isn’t this article front page news
In every newspaper read by folks at the U.N.?
And, perhaps, if it were widely disseminated
Folks wouldn’t be blaming global warming
for the weather-related predicaments they’re now in.

And while we’re still asking questions:
How can one gain access to data on global temperature?
Presumably it’s some sort of average, calculated periodically,
That should be available, not held in abeyance under conditions secure.

2. A Scientist | 10.10.09

This is a misconception. ‘Global warming’ is a misnomer, the proper term is ‘global climate change’.

3. Gary Goldbladt | 10.10.09

The author has not addressed the fact that the thawing glacial ice is cooling the earth: h2o(s) +e = h2o(aq)
It is a serious error that negates the entire article.
This is the Cristian Science Monitor?

4. Eve | 10.10.09

This is not new. We know that the Earth warms and cools. We know it was warmer in the Medieval warm period then colder in the Little Ice Age. We know it was warmer during the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s and then it cooled for 30 years. Why then do people believe that the 18 year warming from 1980 to 1998 is the end of the world? I thought it was a good thing as I was born in the cooling period of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I did not get 30 years of warming unfortuanately and now it is cooling again. I will not live past this cooling but our government will ensure that I freeze to death or move.
It makes me wonder how and why average intelligence is declining. The thought that those who want to tax you for heat still get your vote is bewildering.

5. Rmoen | 10.10.09

Great article! It’s time we American’s took a long hard look at global warming with our own Climate Truth Commission.

Sadly, we now largely out-source our climate science to the United Nations, a political organization advancing their “consensus” view that CO2 drives global warming. The problem is, their view is neither a consensus and can’t possibly be 100% correct because they don’t factor-in clouds and solar activity. And complicated by the fact there may be no global warming, anyway.

The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming. We need the advice of a bi-partisan Climate Truth Commission before we burden our economy with expensive energy.

– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

6. Gail in Maine | 10.10.09

I remember really cold winters and heavy snows in SW Maine and since them late 1970s, I’ve not seen so many of them. Maybe it’s a lapse of memory.

But I know there are myriad cycles: sunspots, ocean currents, etc. that have to do with how cold are the winters, how many hurricanes, how much the Earth’s poles melt or freeze, how the world’s various glaciers react, etc.

It makes total sense for all of us to be gentle with our use of Earth’s natural resources. Having said that, it’s not practical or possibly fruitful to *greatly* restrict the use of fossil fuels for the nations in various stages of development in the near future. Human suffering and their very lives are at stake.

Considering all the super-duper models for weather and warming predictions, we do indeed have better weather predictions but an unknown quantity in climate change predictions. As far as I can tell, all of these models are ultimately subject to guesstimates and somewhat subjective assumptions. There are data to plug into a model but what to do with those data are assumptions and therefore subject to argument. Without knowing the assumptions, or for that matter, the data, one cannot judge the model’s results.

Bottom line for me: it makes total sense to live in a way that makes a small footprint of my (our) existence in terms of the planet’s health. But I remain unconvinced that humankind has had such a grave impact on our global climate.

Thanks for this forum.

Gail in Maine

7. ron from Texas | 10.10.09

Bless the wild, wild internet. It prevents the effect of state-run journalism. The truth eventually gets out. Pretty soon, mainstream media will be following all over itself to re-gain “respectability” by turning skeptic. Appearing knowledgable may become more important than continuing the love affair with Obama.

8. Lilith | 10.10.09

It seems to me that the winter and summer seasons are more pronounced. Fall and spring appear shorter and with more dramatic weather.

9. Steve WH | 10.10.09

“And as most of us know, the Earth warmed at historic rates in the latter half of the 20th century, leading to ice cap melts”

Ah - no it did not. The warming from ~ 1910 to 1945 cannot be distinguished statistically from the warming of the latter part of the century. The Arctic in the 1930/40s was nearly as warm as today or as warm. Lord only knows what the arctic ice was doing as we did not have satellites to compare to today. The NW passage was navigated by the St Roch (Canadian RCMP vessel) several times in the 40s once by the northern route.

This recent warming is in no way unprecedented. See also Climate4you.com

10. Tony | 10.10.09

It’s amusing to go back to the early days of climatology, where every article spoke of global cooling trends and the onset of the next ice age in a matter of decades. The fact that we think we can predict the cycles of a planet literally billions of years old with only a few years of data and some interesting hypotheses is arrogance at best. Anyone who has taken even high-school statistics should know that connection does not prove causality; we have no solid evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide can cause global warming.

11. Dan | 10.11.09

Weathermen are not scientists they just anounce the weather and make half baked predictions. Why not mix weather and politics is only makes sense! The are both unpredictable and are blamed for humanities problems… . .

12. Had Enough | 10.11.09

I love the way they try to twist it - it’s going to re-assert itself, is it? In 20 years? Give us a call when it happens and we’ll talk again. Until then, enjoy yourself as the scam collapses.

13. Steve Case | 10.11.09

Skeptics are barking up the wrong tree. Their argument depends on the weather, and as we all know, that can change. It could start warming up tomorrow!

The “Big Lie” that “Global Warming” would be a catastrophe needs to be taken on. By nearly all measures, a warmer world would be a better world.

When it’s finally understood that “Global Warming” wouldn’t be a disaster, the issue will blow away no matter what the weather does.

14. PeacefulJeff | 10.11.09

What was left out of this article is that climate change is a DECADAL phenomenon. This is the warmest decade EVER. Of course there will be minor fluctuations within that decade, but the decadal trend is the key. Prior decades were successively warmer leading up to this decade, for the most part. That’s the key to focus on, the trend over mulitiple decades.

15. Nicholas Tishu | 10.11.09

11 years (an insubstantial amount) of cooling compared with the hottest on record compared with the fact the earth and the climate has been around for many millions of years.
Also, even if it isn’t warming, what of drought, hurricanes and so on? Or the number of species killed with deforestation? Or our fossil fuel dependant world that’s going to run into problems even if the world is cooling down?
What of the -general- trend of general global temperatures, or the fact cooling in one place can be just as bad as warming in another?

16. Mark | 10.11.09

you’ll hear it on Drudge Report, though. Almost every day. It’s annoying. If someone orders a hot drink in July it’s newsworthy now. Just about anything on the weather that remotely speaks to an abnormally cold feature of the weather. Climate and weather are different, folks.

17. John Plummer | 10.11.09

The hand-wringing, Armageddon’s–a-comin’, global warming believers are like the mother of little Johnny looking at the pencilled horizontal lines on the kitchen wall indicating Johnny’s growth over the past few years. “Look” she exclaims pointing at the wall. “There’s the proof. In a few years time he’s going to be 20ft tall!”
Climate changes. Get over it.

18. Mick J | 10.11.09

The article suggest that the latter part of the 20 century experienced the fastest rise, however the surface temp. record suggests that the first half experiences the faster rise. A rise of about .5C the net increase once the mid century cooling phase finished is only about .3-.4C prior to the current cooling and that requires the most significant El Nino since 1918 or so.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/trend

The Satellite record from 1979 to 1997 pre big El Nino actually shows quite a flat trend for the second half begging a question for some re. quality of surface measurement.
Sat. trend http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/trend
Just so many ways to look at this, the politicians go for…

19. Owen | 10.11.09

Eve, you are spot on with your assessment.
The 2010 election cycle will be telling. I think our root problem is with stupid people who aspire in life to become politicians. This comes in waves of dummies like the climate normally changes. Right now we are at the crest of the wave! We apparently had far to may of those types of folks saying anything and doing anything to win elections. The fix for that problem is having more people like you running our government. Hopefully the 2010 election gets rid of enough of them to make a difference. And in 2012 we could be rid of another one.

20. Interglacial John | 10.11.09

Patrick states in this article, ” And as most of us know, the Earth warmed at historic rates in the latter half of the 20th century…”, this is false. The Earth has warmed much more and faster, as in the medieval warm period. Patrick also says, “But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces…”. The scientific method has proven anthropogenic global warming false, so it would appear the ” unsound” science is coming from the alarmists. All one has to do is check the science and it becomes obvious there has been fraud committed by those pushing for CO2 reductions. Al Gore continues to lie about the real science of climate in order to push his agenda, get seriously rich and hang on to that Nobel Prize.

21. geoff pohanka | 10.11.09

This should not come as a surprise. Look at this website:

http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com

Global temperatures have been cooler since 1998 even though CO2 continues to rise. US temperatures in 2008 were below the average of the last 115 years

Global temperatures in 2008 were below the average of the last 30 years

When you add the ice at both Poles together there is no reduction in global sea ice. Antarctica has the most ice ever recorded. Arctic sea ice is 25% larger than 24 months ago.

Ocean temperatures are cooling.

Global hurricanes are at a 50 year low

Polar bear populations are 3 to 5 times larger than the 1950s

All on this website, http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com

22. JohnDD | 10.11.09

Can’t anyone just print a simple table showing positive and negative effects of global warming (a table of positive and negative effects of global cooling would be just the opposite I assume). For example

POSITIVE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING: 1. Al Gore makes more money with speaking fees. 2. People in the Midwest spend less money on heating bills in the winter 3. Growing seasons lengthen in countries which can actually grow things efficiently, allowing them to feed more people in countries that have always been basket cases NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING: 1. We are forced to continue to have that zombie, Al Gore, attack our ears with his droning 2. Ski season is shortened in Aspen (balanced somewhat by a longer beach season in Los Angeles) 3. Makers of parkas, earmuffs, and winter gloves suffer severe loss of sales

23. Not Chicken Little | 10.11.09

Oh, the hubris! “But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces contributing as much, or more, than man-made CO2.”

God forbid that “natural and solar forces” are more powerful than Man and his some 6 billion tons annual emission of CO2, compared to Nature’s 200 billion tons - what a crazy, “contrarian” (not to mention un-scientific!) idea. We all know that WE are the center of the universe, the be-all and end-all, the omnipotent rulers!

24. Mark from CA | 10.11.09

You guys might want to reconsider telling the truth about the global warmin…er…change fraud. Mustn’t negatively affect Algore’s bottom line.

25. Tom | 10.11.09

How do you forward this fine article to Al “Father of the Internet and Czar of Global Warming” Gore?

It’s not the Ides of October here in MN and already the snow has fallen, the winds blow, and the songbirds are emptying my feeders at an alarming rate.

I don’t know if the earth is warming or not, but I do know it’s not warming here right now.

26. fatvito | 10.11.09

I do not know about warming and cooling, I do know clean air and clean water are a real good thing. If that costs money, so be it.

27. Art Hyland | 10.11.09

Editor, CSM

This is from an MIT publication:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f

This scientific article partially explains why many of us were critical early on of politicians taking over a scientific theory. Al Gore, not a scientist by the way, produced a multi-million dollar movie to help manipulate public opinion, and it worked. So many of the basic assumptions in that documentary are provably wrong, yet the Media for the most part are only now beginning to take notice. This proves that it is never good when media newsrooms advance an agenda other than objectivity. Objectivity was once the hallmark of The Christian Science Monitor, but like so many publications, it has become too heavily influenced by the elite, anointed, highly educated types who frequent the halls of Congress and our universities, pronouncing their prescience, and finding an audience in liberal politicians especially.

Why does an idea take hold when it isn’t provably true? Power, control come to mind. The Obama administration, the EPA, and of course both houses of Congress are advancing a climate agenda full of power, control and a complete alteration of this country’s way of life. Cheap energy is key to any economic recovery but Congress’s wisdom is demanding the opposite; we are all going to feel the pain of a certain march to financial oblivion if it isn’t stopped by a Media who must first admit culpability. Your article here is a good start, and harkens back to the reason the CSM was at one time always a source to believe in.

Art Hyland
Astoria, OR

28. E.Patrick Mosman | 10.11.09

“But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces contributing as much, or more, than man-made CO2.
If any “science” was and still is “not scientifically sound” it is the mantra that “man made CO2 causes warming. The real deniers’ are those environmentalists,politicains and media who hyped the evils of CO2 for their own agendas especially gaining control of the world’s energy for the purposes of raisng taxes on the masses for their energy use and to control and dictate the future energy sources. The real man-made problems are the man-made theories, man-made assumptions, man-made computer climate models, man-made computer programs, man-made hyping of the most extreme projections “to get the public’s attention’ none of which predict a cooling period which NASA and other scientists may last another 20-30 years, a normal typical period for the earth’s cyclical climate based on historical records. For the record CO2 is a naturally occuring gas, unlike man-made computer projections and media hype, as well as being man-made.

29. Siegmund Wagner | 10.11.09

The real question is not an international response to either global warming or cooling, but the behind-the-scenes machinations of social welfare governemts and their elite advocates who reap fortunes from “public” service that these governments are running out of money. And so, various strategies to drive the lemming taxpayers to pony up more hard earned funds is coming in such strategies as climate change legislation, cap and trade, national healthcare and the like, all designed with on intention. To raise more tax revenues to governments reeling under falling tax revenues and the squeeze of the market place of consumers NOT spending enough money to refill government coffers. This is why there is “no debate” on any of these motions and plans, because the real motive is to raise taxes while pretending not to.

30. Hunter Paalman | 10.11.09

Thanks for informing outside the box of liberal media establishment group think on anthropogenic global warming - now euphemistically termed ‘climate change.’ Eve nails it from personal experience and sound instinct. The largely unreported conflicts in the scientific arena are interesting, but not the matter of popular news. ( A readable summary can be found in “Heaven and Earth, global warming - the missing science” by Ian Plimer, geologist, academic. Taylor Trade Publishing )

The more sinister aspect of this issue is the crass political manipulation for idealogical ends. This ranges from children singing happy little green songs in honor of the Earth Mother to scientific researchers funded with government grants to publish the environmentalist line. Political power corrupts and those pursuing it using this subject have been ruthless and persistent.

To finish with a quote from Caltech Professor Richard Feynman of fond memory, “Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”

31. Mike | 10.11.09

Global Warming is an Apocalyptic myth, surrounding a political agenda, cloaked in Science, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. It is nothing more than a variation on the age old theme of “Repent, the end is near”. The Left needs its Apocalyptic myths just like the right. As for the Science part, I believe many honest objective Scientists are truly trying to determine the truth. However, attempting to “model” Climate may be an impossible task. Remember, no current model is accurate at predicting temperature. We can’t even accurately predict local weather patterns, let alone the global temperature. The output of the sun is variable, the amount of cosmic radiation impacting the Earth from other sources is variable, just those two alone could explain any variance in temperature we are currently experiencing. And the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is not necessarily a causal one: perhaps CO2 levels rise in response to temperature rise. But no amount of reason will stop the GW train from rolling. There is too much money and too many professional reputations invested. I am all for being a good steward to our planet and finding alternative technologies must be an urgent priority. But trying to threaten people with extinction to get them to do the right thing is not only morally repugnant, but counter productive. What happens when your threatened warming does not arrive? You lose all credibility and any momentum for change you have goes up in smoke.

32. gorgo | 10.11.09

Al Gore, call your office.

33. Hymie | 10.11.09

See I told you so 20 YEARS AGO!

34. Abe in Long Beach | 10.11.09

I feel global warming should finally be relegated to the same status as the new ice-age that almost killed us in the 70’s. It is a distraction used by corporations and their bought off governments in order to centralize power beyond the nation state while also offering multi-decade long environmental plans of action, with few tangible benefits or measures of success, that substitute for concrete actions to stem the increasing flows of very real pollution- like all that plastic in the pacific, or computer e-waste, or the toxic dumping in Somali waters. Global warming is nothing more than a corporate farce used to “green-wash” bad business practices.

35. Michael | 10.11.09

How about gathering all the video of the snowed out Phillies/Rockies Playoff game and posting it as a thread topic?

I’m downloading all the baseball snow day video to re upload on Youtube. The MSM is not giving us much snow event video for a reason, but they can’t possibly ignore the sports snow news in the cities that the snow shut out the games in. They do try hard in isolating the video to those cities thou because of the powerful affect of actual video.

Here’s what I have so far;

Snow balls at Rockies/Phillies game?
http://www.mefeedia.com/news/24291970

Phillies/Rockies Game 3 postponed
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/sports/pro/baseball&id=7058089

Nice video from Philadelphia of the baseball snow day.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/sports/phillies/101009_

MLB video
First ever World series game suspended!

Game 3 of Rox-Phils NLDS postponed
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091010&content_id=7420164&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

36. JimC | 10.11.09

According to Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5992BJ20091010 George Soros plans on “investing” 1 Billion dollars in green technology. He also plans to “form and fund a new climate policy initiative with $10 million a year for 10 years”.

I find it interesting that a multi-billionaire is so heavily invested in climate change. With that much money at stake, and the potential for major profits, it makes me wonder how much the profit aspect is driving climate change impetus.

As is slowly starting to come out, and as this article suggests, this debate is hardly a closed. With these things in mind, and as Watergate taught us, maybe we should think more about “following the money”.

37. Chris | 10.11.09

Yet another article conflating climate with weather. It remains a fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 385ppm, higher than it’s been in almost 15 million years. The problem is past warming and cooling cycles were natural and not human induced. Unfortunately, people confuse the two. Also the record does show that a rise in carbon dioxide follows a warming trend which reinforces it and makes the warming last longer than it would otherwise. Today is different.

Humans are artificially increasing the amount of carbon dioxide at much greater rate and the climate is warming. Much of the gas is going into the ocean and acidifying it. And a lot of the warming is also going into the ocean. The Earth does have a complex climate cycle, but there is enough evidence to show that it is warming and that humans are responsible. It is unfortunate that the science has become so politicized and the average person is hard-pressed to sift through the noise to get accurate information. And just like evolution the evidence for human induced global warming gets stronger and not weaker.

38. Steve E | 10.11.09

To answer Eve’s question! Too much education!
Once education brainwashes peoples common sense out of them, they have to follow the doctrine they have been taught. Politicians seem to be at the forefront here!
What we need to do is be prepared for both warm and cold.
Geological records show us that it goes both ways.
Recent history shows us the same.
So common sense should tell us to build homes that stay warm and cool.
Norwegians have been doing this for many years, so therefore it’s not that hard to do.
This will conserve resources and allow us to pass what is left onto our children and future generations.

My parents had to live through the London Blitz, so had to be frugal and “Make do and Mend”. And people were a whole lot healthier and happier for it, during a terrible time to live.

39. Tom S. | 10.11.09

Chris,

The only thing people point to as blame for humans causing it, was the apparent correlation of CO2 to temperature. However that has been proven to not be the case. CO2 lags temperature changes by 800 years. That one fact completely disproves any notion of human induced warming via CO2.

Einstein said it best.. A thousand experiments cannot prove him right.. One experiment can prove him wrong.

The explanation for this is simple. The oceans are a huge CO2 sink.. And as we all know with Soda, when its warm, it goes flat faster.. That is because water’s carrying capacity of CO2 drops as it warms. If the ocean warms, it will out-gas CO2 thus increasing atmospheric concentration. Given the depth and size of the oceans, it would take roughly 800 years for it to respond to a change in atmospheric temperatures.

Given the long history of CO2 on this planet (5 some billion years), we are in a very CO2 deprived era. Plant growth literally shuts off at 150ppm. If you truly want to kill the planet, and food supplies.. You’ll lower CO2. But if you want a lush and vibrant world with plants that grow far larger and faster with less water… You would do your part to raise CO2 levels.

40. Tom AsISeeItNow | 10.11.09

According to Chris, the oceans are warming and acidifying. Interesting counter factual assertions. Recent ocean measurements show a cooling and PH measurement at Monterrey Bay show no acidification trend. If Chris was keeping up with the latest observational data he would know this. Also, since CO2’s ability to further absorb IR heat radiating skyward from the earth reached 99% opacity in the first 20 ppm of CO@ all the rest has no measurable warming effect on the earth, and serve as an airborne plant fertilizer. An optimum CO2 level for the atmosphere would be at about 1000 ppm.

When you hear or read a man-made global warming advocate say “the science is settled,” they are right, but they are not telling the whole truth. It is settled in that the AGW hypothesis and data supporting it is fraudulent and the science that is settled by that which demonstrates that CO2 is not causing the unprecedented rise in global temperature(that didn’t happen), or any measurable rise at all, and that for the last eleven year the global temperature has been falling. The latter is significant because the five IPCC models all predicted an uninterrupted warming from 2000 to 2100. The settled science is that the wishful (wanna believe it) claims of the alarmists is totally false.

Is’n it wonderful how the alarmist can truthful say the science is settle, and omit that it is not settled in their behalf.

41. Laurie | 10.11.09

THANK YOU CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR! Great article. Still a little on the “chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling side,” but more scientific and less politically correct than usual!!!

I do believe the earth has endured much more pollution in the past centuries and millenia, and life remains. I just read a biography of Thomas Edison, and people hailed the electric light bulb because it polluted less!

My remarks, however, should not be construed as an endorsement of pollution. I love trees, animals and parks just like every environmentalist out there. No one is in favor of pollution. We are just not AFRAID of pollution, AND NOT WILLING TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY, BURDEN FAMILIES, AND DESTROY SMALL BUSINESSES WITH CAP AND TRADE!

42. Spadecat | 10.11.09

So the sky, after all, is not falling. The apocalyptic heat, and its cataclysmic consequences, forwarned, nay threatened as imminent, has not only not materialized, the earth, contrary to every climate model, has actually cooled.

And yet, the Believers have the temerity to assert that, again contrary to every model, that the earth will “resume” its heating, the present cooling notwithstanding.

Reminds me of a saying of my old Irish grandmother: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

The fraud of AGW is on borrowed time.

If science doesn’t strike the final blow shortly, Nature certainly will.

43. Bernie | 10.11.09

Chris, why stop at 15 million years. Go to 150 million years and you’ll find we are at an historically low level of CO2. Your comment ‘…past warming and cooling cycles were natural and not human induced…’ is taking as proven what has never been proved and what the argument is all about. There is no evidence that humans are doing anything to the climate but you of the climate cult constantly ignore evidence and simply repeat your mantra.

44. Adam R. | 10.11.09

Complete tosh.

It’s “news you’ve never heard” because it isn’t so. Measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

Mr. Jonsson’s confusion over what is weather and what is climate, so sadly evident in his first paragraph, betrays an ignorance of his subject that becomes more obvious with each succeeding paragraph. Really, CSM, don’t you have someone who can vet this stuff before it’s released on the world?

45. Judy Cross | 10.11.09

You quote Hadley as an authority, but did you know that they relied on CRU which has just revealed that they have destroyed destroyed their records….”Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data”

“In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.” http://www.icecap.us/

Then, there is the scandal of the cherry picked tree core data.
“Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml

46. Keith | 10.11.09

Greenhouse emissions are a hoax. Carbon dioxide has no influence on climate change. Physicists, fundamental scientists, and the Environmental Protection Agency will vouch there is no scientific data, nor theory to support the Al Gore untruth. A glass cage would need to surround the earth before there could be a greenhouse effect. Even so Carbon Dioxide would play no part in climate change because it constitutes three ten thousandths of the atmosphere and has no special heat trapping chemistry.

Bear in mind that climatologists who proclaim the validity of a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect are not scientists. They are weathermen. They are news announcers with a liberal arts education, and specialized training in short term weather prediction.

A tax on carbon dioxide would hobble US industrial production. Business would relocate to more enlightened economies such as China, India, and Korea. Jobs would vanish. The depression would be prolonged.

References:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green- house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

“It is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in greenhouse gas levels based on the satellite record” National Center for Environmental Economics.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Professor Lindzen proves the effect of CO2 on temperature is a non event.

NO LONGER can it be credibly argued that “global warming” is worse than previously thought. No longer can it be argued that “global warming” was, is, or will be any sort of global crisis. Recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature, combined with streams of data from satellites and thermometers, now provide a complete picture of why it is that the UN’s climate panel, the worldwide political class, and other “global warming” profiteers are wrong in their assumption that the enterprises of humankind will disastrously warm the Earth. The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That nowprolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

Not only in the oceans but also in the tropical upper atmosphere, realworld measurements are showing up the scaremongers’ computermodels as useless. All of the models predict that at altitude in the tropics “global warming” should have happened at thrice the surface rate. But half a century of measurement has shown that that warming has not happened either. That, too, is fatal to the “official” notion.

http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article13822.html

47. Frank | 10.11.09

“Climate change — no matter how benign or severe a course it takes — makes legislating during the 21st century one of the most complicated and complex tasks for elected officials in human history,” writes Morgan Josey Glover in the Greensboro, N.C., News-Record newspaper.

Quotable?? Perhaps for its utter banal idiocy. Written by an obama voter, for sure.

48. Eve | 10.11.09

Laurie and Chris. Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, you are a little mixed up because the supreme court called it pollution and so does the EPA but they are examples of why I am wondering about the decline of human intelligence. Soot or the unburned bits of carbon that are expelled from factories and cars are pollution. Carbon dioxide, is an invisible gas that you expell with every breath. If you really want to stop carbon dioxide from building up, stop exhaling. Carbon dioxide is plant food. This planet was once at 1500 ppm and 1000 ppm and 700 ppm, etc. The atmosphere is presently carbon dioxide impoverished but it is creeping back little by litte. But at some time the next glaciation will occur and knock it back again. I would say I hope you are not alive when that happens but if you hold your breath for over 2 minutes you will not be. I think we should send all the environmentalists to Afganistan. 70% of people there do not have electricity. That would be a win-win situation.

49. Bob | 10.11.09

Great article that helps pull back the skin on the fraud that is global warming. Eventually, we will begin to understand that the global warming hysteria was really just an artifact of peer reviewed funding by a cabal of intolerant scientists who sought personal gain over the better interests of humanity. Too late we will learn that Al Gore and his ilk have made millions investing in companies that tax us for heating our houses.

Carbon dioxide is fertilizer for plants. Warm temperatures have over human history been associated with advances in civilization. Global cooling has been most associated with despotism, famine and war. With the decline of influence of organized religion, the deeply imbeded instinct for garden of eden stories has been hijacked by global warming narcissism.

Its time to challenge idiots who are infected with and try to pass on the global warming meme.

50. Brandon Kerr | 10.11.09

It’s naive and arrogant to say that humans, which occupy only a portion of the land on Earth, of which the Earth is only 1/3 dry land, could possibly change the climate of the entire earth. Lets put it this way: Say that we could see into the future and we know 100% for sure that we were all going to freeze to death in fifteen years. Do you think that we could purposely heat the entire planet? If we couldn’t on purpose (which we can’t), then how could we accidentally? It’s foolishness!

51. Fox | 10.11.09

CHRIS
Since the ready card out of your sleeve was to change timescale to defend the shell shuffle, why does your scale begin 15 million years ago? Why not use geological time? The coldest point between the Jurassic and Cambrian Eras was a whopping 10 degrees C colder than the preceding and following warmer periods. Well guess what? That cold point was warmer than today’s warmest projections for us! During the short Permian era global temps rose drastically 19 degrees C from an ice age to the hottest this planet has know in 4.5 billion years. What removed CO2 from the environment during prior warm periods to usher the cooling all the way down to ice ages? Warm oceans have a lower capacity of absorbing gasses and there were no carbon credits to be bought, yet somehow the climate cooled by over 15 degrees C. Can someone tell me how the other half of this bell curve works? The upward side to the median has thawing from an ice age followed by higher CO2 concentration and then higher CO2 concentration supposedly keeping it warm and making it warmer, but then rather than continuing to heat in a positive feedback loop it reverses trend. Before the ready card of the Atlantic heat conveyer gets slapped down please tell me why the subsequent cooling didn’t allow the oceans to absorb the CO2 they released during the warming trend mindful that fossil records show crustacean shells comprised of said carbon being thinner afterwards. Oh yeah, lush flora flourishes in warmth and adequate CO2 supply, thus producing hydrocarbons from other nourishment and releases CO2 from those hydrocarbons during decay causing a fundamental increase in net CO2 over time. Surely you did not think all the carbon to build cellular fibers and such came from an atmospheric gas that is measured in parts per million, did you? Accumulation of excess CO2 over eons should have at least caused shorter or less cool ice ages if it is a driving greenhouse gas, but the one we are coming out of was more sever than the last and lasted longer than the one during the Ashgill epoch 440 million years ago when CO2 concentration was so thin that land vegetation was virtually non existent before hand. If we have this wonderful AGW greenhouse now which never existed before, geologically, I hope future politicians and columnists use it to protect humanity from the next ice age. I would put my trust in scientists of that future, but by the looks of things they would just be ignored while being taxed for causing too much ACC CO2.
You better move your goalposts again, science hit the net like your goalie was sleeping.

52. Jerry McIntire | 10.11.09

Eve and Bob, human induced increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is indeed a sign of pollution. They have elevated so quickly since industrialization began because we are burning so much fossil fuel and so much wood, and that combustion pollutes: nitrous oxides, sulfuric acid, hydrocarbons, etc. CO2 is not the only reason we need to restrain and replace the burning of fossil fuels. No one will tax you for heating your home if you do it with solar or geothermal energy. These renewable and much more benign heating and energy production methods are where we are headed if we want clean air and clean water. Let’s not block progress.

53. mo | 10.11.09

i guess the farmers alminac was correct . they said it was going to be a very cold with alot of snow and temps below where they should be .so this is just about mid october can you imagine what january and february are going to be like . it is getting cool in the northeast also already . we are getting freeze warnings . it usually starts to cool off in novemeber but does not get really get that much of a chill till the end of november close to thanksgiving lets see what happens this year I bet with in the next two weeks we are going to have very cold nights

54. Think Again | 10.11.09

I wonder who’s paying for CSM articles like this???

55. mo | 10.11.09

as part of a global warming cycle it does cool down alot because of all the ice that has melted up in the arctic the water temps cool down around the globe which does bring a change to the weather . the temps are cooler and it may be drier . the ocean waters were tested and they did show an overall drop of 1 degree in the ocean it does not take much to change the climate . we have had so called mini ice ages in the past. in the 1800’s they had one during the summer months it was cool enought that you could wear a sweater or light jacket .

56. ryan | 10.12.09

There is a disturbing lack of understanding of climatology in these comments. Most of you are embarrassing yourselves.

57. John Marshall | 10.12.09

Yes the planet has cooled somewhat. In fact the 0.6C rise that the alarmists warned about has been lost plus a bit, cooling has been 0.7C. The IPCC is held up as the truth in all this, at least by some, but their figures do not bare out the alarmism. According to IPCC figures 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour the remaining 5% is the other gasses which includes CO2. Their figures also show that our CO2 input into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is 3% of the total annual CO2 budget. The remaining 97% is from natural sources. So the total effect of CO2 is 3% of 5% which is 0.15% warming caused by fossil fuel use. Some driver! It is also good to know that for the USA the warmest year was 1934 not 1998 and as we have only 30 years of real time data on climate and ice cover this short time is insufficient to make any meaningful assumptions about the future.

58. Jeff | 10.12.09

Try this little experiment to understand a little more about climate change as it relates to weather. You’ll need a thermometer, a glass of water, and some ice cubes.

Fill the glass full of ice cubes and then add water. Let it sit for ten minutes and take the temperature. It should be close to freezing. Note the time and temperature. Take the temperature every ten minutes and write down the time and temperature. Do this until all the ice melts and note the time when the last of the ice has melted. Continue taking measurements until the glass of water returns to room temperature, then graph your data with time on the x axis and temperature on the y axis.

What does your graph look like? It should look like a straight line at 32 degrees Fahrenheit for a long time until all the ice melts, and then the line will curve upward quickly until the temperature of the glass of water equals the room temperature. The reason is because of the nature of ice. When ice melts it undergoes what’s known as a phase change. It takes a lot of energy to change phases. That’s why a cup of ice cubes will cool your drink much more than a cup of icewater.

If you don’t understand this experiment, or see how it applies to the ice caps and Greenland’s ice sheet, then please stick to talking about American Idol and don’t post your opinions on global warming.

59. Richard | 10.12.09

I’d have to agree with Ryan.

60. Bob | 10.12.09

Jeff, Great comment, but it will go way over the head of those who wish not to see the obvious.

We are undertaking a massive experiment here, pumping carbon dioxide and millions of other chemicals into our environment at a startling rate. Some of us are hypothesising a large reaction, some are hypothesising no reaction.

If we were conducting this experiment in a large enclosed chamber somewhere it would be one thing. Intead we are doing it with the whole planet.

The first question is not, “what will be the results of our experiment?”, it should be, “should we conduct the experiment at all?”.

61. Guy | 10.12.09

Ummmmm………..global warming is bs. If you are that worried about it plant more trees.

62. Joe | 10.12.09

To Jeff and Bob,

But what happens in the experiment if the ice grows despite your expectation that it should be melting? How long do you cling to the idea the the temperature of the room is rising, when the evidence is that it is cooling?

Just to make things clear: weather and climate ARE two different things, but weather is what happens DAY TO DAY (i.e. a snowstorm or a hurricane (unless, of course, it is Hurricane Katrina (smile)) and climate is what happens over years . We are now seeing the data gathered over years and the current CLIMATE trend is one of cooling.

63. Laurie | 10.12.09

Bob,
All of the chemicals we are “pumping” into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE EARTH. Technically, they are all natural. Earth is a closed system. We don’t create carbon, flourine, chlorine, mercury, - we just rearrange them in a way that helps us. We have never created a NEW atom. We discover them, and use them. They are part of the Earth. Now trying to create black holes on earth, that sounds foolish and dangerous.

I asked an energy expert whether it would affect weather and climate if we created enough windmills and solar panels to supply our energy needs. If you take energy out of the wind, there is less wind energy downwind. You could create atmospheric stagnation for instance. His reply, the amount of energy we take out is miniscule compared to the amount of energy in the system. If that is true, then the amount of carbon dioxide, etc that producing the same amount of energy puts into the atmospheric system is also miniscule relative to the size of the system.

64. Ryan | 10.12.09

True that, 90 percent of you have either no clue what your talking about or are ignorant. Sound like a bunch of fools.

65. dave | 10.12.09

Ryan, name calling, the true defense of AGW. The problem is that the science is NOT on your side.

66. Chuck | 10.12.09

If the premise of global warming is that man is the cause, then at what point does the world adopt a no population growth policy? The world’s population is expected to increase in size by 50% or so over the next 40 years. Bet that has a greater impact on the world that global warming.

67. Jeff | 10.13.09

Joe #12. In science you shouldn’t cherry-pick the evidence. It’s true that in some places in the world ice is accumulating, but in more places it’s melting. Still, nobody has a perfect understanding of how the global climate works, so who knows - you might be right. Still, like Bob said, why take a chance?

Laurie #13. Your logic is flawed in so many ways it makes me sad. Potassium is natural, and chlorine is natural. Put them together and eat it, though, and you die. When people talk about pollution hurting the earth, what they are really talking about is hurting people on the earth. You get that, right?

68. Brad | 10.13.09

Chuck # 16. if there is indeed a change in climate towards warming I do believe that the earths population will be kept in check by mass starvation in India,Pakistan and china by their inability to grow food. Not to mention the armed conflicts in these countries as they try to control shared water resources

69. B | 10.13.09

All the anti-global warming types in this comment section seem to be under the impression that all the garbage we pump into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever on the planet.
And Laurie #13, thinks that rearranging atoms has no effect on their chemistry.

70. BrianH | 10.13.09

Before you put a cap on this argument, you may want to consult polar bears, walruses and other aquatic mammals that rely on sea ice as rest stops and are having a rather hard time of it with the current climate change.

71. Tatsu Sekiguchi | 10.13.09

I am not so sure if the whole entire earth is getting wormer, but I realize the evidence through my daily experience. I often go fishing at lakes on mountains even in winter. When I was a elementary school kid around 30 years ago, those lakes were totally frozen in winter. We could step on the lake and drill holes for fishing. Nowadays, we need boats…. I had such experiences in Japan, though, how about your town, your city, and your country? We should take a look around your environments before believing media, scientists, and governments.

The global worming will be a really big matter if the human beings cannot survive with such a big climate change that occurred only last 30-40 years. Look at small islands in south Pacific…

72. Jonathahn | 10.13.09

In regards to the global warming debate… i only have one thing to share..
when i was in fourth grade (1976) i had a teacher who shared with our class that the earth was cooling so rapidly that we were heading for another iceage. She used the data from our wonderful govermental agency called NASA, and in the process scared the hell out of about 35 children… I never forgot that and now in my adult life i hear that we are heading for disaster because of global warming…
because the “scientists” say so. i say baloney. those fools were wrong then and they are wrong now.

73. Keith | 10.13.09

The global warming nay sayers apparently read the above article only VERY SELECTIVELY. Scientists look at long term trends. A year or even a few decades is but a flick in geologic time. To make an admitedly crude analogy, take a look at the stock market. History shows that it goes up over time, but one sure wouldn’t reach that conclusion just by looking at the past few years. Yet most people aren’t selling their portfolios.

With the massive amounts of changes that humanity has made on the planet, it would seem quite surprising to me if we hadn’t made some significant changes on cllimate.

74. Randy | 10.13.09

Many people here apparently get most of their information from Fox news. Eve, you say carbon dioxide is not pollution because humans create it when they breath? That is a perfect example of the nonsense you people create and believe. Bob, what the hell are you talking about? We need to be careful about harnessing the wind becasue if we do, there may not be enough wind to go downwind? OMG! Guy, what can I say. You all seem to have not even read this article. Even if this “scientific data” in this article is to be used, it still says that a temperature decrease is only a temporary lull in a cycle. “Eventually, he says, “the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself,”
And no one is talking about taxing your home heating. That is just another example of some idiots comment being passed of as fact.

75. Colin | 10.13.09

Mr. Jonssons blog shows an gross mis-understanding of global warming. Unfortunately, global warming does not simply mean that the tempertature will get warmer. One of the predicted effects of global warming is that weather patterns will be altered and there will be unusual extremes of weather - both hot and cold. The opening sentence of this blog describes early cold spells in many areas. This is one of the predicted effects of global warming!

76. Ken | 10.13.09

Since when has CO2 become a Pollutant? All living matter gives off CO2, therefore just about everything is giving off CO2. I have an idea, how about the politicans stop wasting their breath on global warming, and the eatrh’s CO2 emmissions will go down by about 99%!

77. Dan Clawson | 10.13.09

There is no question that temperatures at the poles are rising signiificantly, and that the ocean is acidifying. These facts are not being addressed by the skeptics.

78. Dan | 10.13.09

Skepticism of the over-hyped threat of global warming is appropriate.

I understand and value science, yet too many of those who ring the bell for immediate action against global warming have played fast and loose with the facts and the truth.

Scientists are people and they definitely can and do gloss over inconvenient facts and tend to focus on research that is more likely to be rewarded with government grants and approval from their colleagues.

79. rick | 10.13.09

Look at the global temperature trend for the last 100 years, not just the last 10 or 30- it would clear up this whole mess.

Also, just because something occurs in nature mean that you can just do it as much as you want without consequences. There is a natural balance which can be easily upset.

80. JWutzke | 10.13.09

Keith’s analogy, and Chris’s (#2) comment, are spot-on. Just as one unusually strong hurricane (or even three-in-a-row) is not a sign of global warming, one not-as-hot-as-blazes year (or even three-in-a-row) is not a sign that global warming does not exist.

I happen to believe in global warming. But it seems to me that even if one doesn’t, one should be concerned that we are materially altering the natural world without having a good, solid idea of what the outcome will be. If in fact there turns out not to have been global warming, then you win and we were wrong — but why should we be continuing to gamble, to roll the dice, before we know for sure?

81. Rational Thinker | 10.13.09

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/gw.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

82. Jackie Logans | 10.13.09

As a contrarian myself, this article just goes to show that all the Doomsday
prophecies about global warming have to be taken with a grain of salt. Solar activity and nature’s cycles are indeed as big a part of this conundrum as are the activities of humans.

Shrill voices crying wolf are no substitute for calm, patient analysis and observation of ALL facets of climate change.

83. Gary | 10.13.09

I assume all you climate clerics are happy with the people behind the curtain driving this movement toward worldwide redistribution of wealth and the means of production.

84. Michael | 10.13.09

I will try to make it simple for those who think that carbon is “natural”; when you take billions of tons of carbon out of the ground (oil and coal) where it has been hanging out not bothering anyone for millions of years and start pumping it into the atmosphere–that’s not natural! That’s why we are trying to sequester it back where it won’t have an warming effect.

85. Howard Beale | 10.13.09

I would agree with the comment made by Chuck (see #16). Therefore, in order to help Mother Gaia, and to save humanity, I propose we offer free Obamacare to all liberals immediately. After a couple of years of that, there will be no more problems with excess carbon dioxide, and in fact there will be a great deal less hot air. I would suggest we start with Mr. Gore, since his carbon footprint and carbon dioxide production is obscene.

86. Nelson | 10.13.09

So many of the comments posted here are just plain rude. It makes me sad. Why is it that some people insist on belittling the opinions of others? Why do they pass judgment on other people’s ideas or opinions as though they had a corner on all the good ideas and on all the knowledge in the world? I read every single comment posted here and found some of them expressed very politely, while others are not much more than insults aimed at someone else’s post(s). As I neared the end of the list of posts, I was growing increasingly sad and was nearly worn out by the negativity and ugliness when I found one post that made me smile and laugh right out loud. So THANK YOU, Ken, for writing: “Since when has CO2 become a Pollutant? All living matter gives off CO2, therefore just about everything is giving off CO2. I have an idea, how about the politicans stop wasting their breath on global warming, and the earth’s CO2 emmissions will go down by about 99%!” Same thing could be said about some of the comments posted here.

87. Woody Porter | 10.13.09

To Ken (#19) –

In suppose you’re entitled to your opinion — but I don’t think you’re entitled to have informed people take your opinion seriously — any more than they would take seriously the opinion that 2 + 2 = 5.

“Since when has CO2 become a Pollutant?” It’s not a question of CO2 being a pollutant. It’s a question of CO2 being involved in a series of chemical reactions, all of which produce the “greenhouse effect.” Learn something about chemistry. Learn something about the greenhouse effect.

Until you do, you’re simply a voice in the wilderness crying out “2 + 2 = 5.”

88. jr | 10.13.09

The problem is that climatology is a limited science. Climate data has only been taken since the 1880’s and although that seems like a long time to most of us it is not when you realize the earth is probably between a billion to 2 billion years old. When I was in science class as little kid I was told to always have ALL THE DATA BEFORE I MADE A THEORY!

89. dave slusser | 10.13.09

I believe we are in for a set of natural checks and balances that nature has in store for us in response to carbon dioxide levels created by man the likes of which didn’t exist over a hundred or so years ago. We have thrown these new levels of co2 in the face of nature and we are likely to see responses that are more complicated or at least more surprising than warming or cooling.

90. cm warn | 10.13.09

The problem was misnamed, it’s really “Catastrophic Climate change” we’re facing, but ‘Global Warming’ doesn’t sound quite so scary. It’s easier to handle, especially for people who believe in things like , the Easter Bunny, and Jesus showing up like some cosmic hazmat crew to fix it all up for ya! Then you really don’t have to take responsibility for anything, huh? or even think about it.

91. Leeat70+ | 10.13.09

there is no evidence for evolution and many scientists today acknowledge that …

92. jaxx | 10.14.09

Maybe everybody’s measures of counteracting Global warming has been working and nobody noticed until now.

93. Christian Cottingham | 10.14.09

Radiation is a ‘natural’ occurance, but look at what happens when we get too much of it. As Rick says, any imbalance of a natural order can be catastrophic for us.

What’s worrying here is that a large swathe of people don’t want to alter their wasteful lifestyles, and so scrabble for any shred of information that might just permit them to carry on consuming as before. As always, it’ll be the poorest of people that suffer first. Ice caps are melting - all the evidence points that way. There are anomalies, sure - there always are in science (it’s a big planet) - but the trend is towards warming. That should be worrying us a lot more than it currently is.

But then, of course, what do we care? We’ll be dead before the really tragedies start occurring. Man, we’re selfish.

94. tombaxter | 10.14.09

It’s good to hear the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland are cooling, which means their ice caps are growing.

95. Edward Eck | 10.14.09

Wait! Wait! New evidence. The warmest year was NOT 1998; the warmest year was 2005. In fact 1998 and 2007 tied for the second warmest year on record. 2008 was the ninth warmest year on record and the first 6 months of 2009 are the 4th warmest years (global temps) on record.
Moreover, “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.”
Here’s the facts:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
So the BBC report and the “Global cooling since 1998″ guys are blown out of the water. Both the BBC and the CSM should check their facts more carefully.

96. bostonEddie | 10.14.09

(let’s see if THIS gets posted)
In fact, 1998 is not the warmest year on record. The warmest year so far was 2005, with 1998 and 2007 tied for second place. 10 of the 12 warmest years have occurred since 1998; see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
So, the claim that temperatures have been dropping since 1998 is completely bogus. The BBC and the CSM should be less sensationalistic and more careful about reporting their data.

1. Has global cooling begun? | csmonitor.com | 10.20.09