No Global Warming Since The Kyoto Treaty Was Rejected

In October, 1997, Bill Clinton called Al Roker to the White House to help push global warming alarmism, in an attempt to pass Kyoto.

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama weather deja vu

The stars of meteorology were aligned as the White House made its case on climate change.  NBC’s Al Roker was there, along with more than 100 national and local television weather forecasters — some of them doing their TV hits from the White House lawn. They met with the president and his advisers. And the administration hoped the broadcasters’ popular appeal would help sell the public on the need to take action on global warming

No, that wasn’t the big climate-weather outreach that the Obama White House held on Tuesday. It was a quite similar event that the Clinton White House held in October 1997, as that administration was preparing for discussions of a global climate agreement in Kyoto, Japan.  But yes, Roker was invited both time

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama weather deja vu – Bob King –

Kyoto was unanimously rejected by the Senate, and since the last Al Roker global warming event 17 years ago, global temperatures have fallen nearly 0.1 degrees.

ScreenHunter_237 May. 06 12.47

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to No Global Warming Since The Kyoto Treaty Was Rejected

  1. dmmcmah says:

    It’s harder to argue with facts than it is to appeal to emotions like save the planet, save the polar bear, the greatest crisis we have ever faced blah blah.

  2. Robert M says:

    Up front, I will admit that I am a non-scientist and a rank amateur with respect to the minutiae of global whatever you want to call it today.

    As you may have already figured out, I am not a believer, but I do have one, what I think is a relatively intelligent, question about the collection of temperature readings.

    With the MULTIPLE data sources (I would think thousands) used to come up with ONE temperature of the earth, I find it very hard to believe that the “scientists” can come up with a temperature that truly reports it increased .6 degrees in 100 years. It defies logic.

    For quite a long time temperature could only be read using analog thermometers and their accuracy would depend on a lot of different factors, not the least of which would be human error. Now that we have digital data sources, I would imagine the odds of much better accuracy would be increased, but that would also depend on the calibration of the equipment, etc.

    Am I missing something? Perhaps you could point me to a paper which discusses this issue. I can’t imagine I would have been the first person to wonder about this.

    Thanks very much.

    • Brian H says:

      It’s dubious that there is such a thing as ‘average temperature’. Only heat can be averaged, and a 1 degree change in ocean temperature = several degrees of land temperature change for the same heat flux. Plus 70% of Earth’s surface is ocean. So by rights, a 1 degree rise in ocean temperature should be “weighted” many times what the same change on land would be, but they’re treated the same for the “global average”.

    • Robert, you are not the first to wonder about it. As Brian says, the problem goes deeper than just how we measure temperatures. We may not know the total amount of heat in a system and measure it accurately but at least it makes sense. As to the “average temperature” of a complex, non-homogeneous system, below is an article about a 2007 paper on “global temperature” by Essex, McKitrick & Andresen.

      Is there an average global temperature?
      Global temperature — politics or science?
      C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007). [= Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics]

  3. Andy DC says:

    OMG! The propaganda/disinformation campaign has reached a whole new level.

  4. Alec, aka daffy duck says:

    LOL! The report was supposed to be released in APRIL… I guess it was too cold!

    Try googling: “National Climate Assessment” to be released April

  5. Alec, aka daffy duck says:

    Specifically it was to be out April 24…. Frost warning everywhere. They delayed the report because of cold

  6. Eric Simpson says:

    This seems to be a good spot to plug in my comment at the wuwt article about “normal” levels of Arctic ice prehaps appearing this summer:

    If I happened to be a squawking Chicken Little I would say: you guys are making a big deal about “normal” amounts of Arctic ice? Like normal is a “significant story.” Like it signifies plummeting temperatures and the onset of a new ice age? Seriously, normal? We’ve had very low levels of Arctic ice and once this little bit of normal blows over we will go back to being ice free again like we predicted for 2013. And if not, so what, we look elsewhere, like to Antarctica, or well then to U.S. temperatures, or to skyrocketing global temperatures over the last 20 years, or er to our climate models, or er um, uhm, to whatever it is, the media will report our story, and the little people will believe. Like you guys think that the people are going to be all freaked out about “normal” levels of ice. Not! That won’t scare anyone! (/s)

    • Anthony S says:

      Don’t forget, they can still point to PIOMAS and say volume is still plummeting.

  7. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Feeling rejected, Kyoto took its global warming toys and went away.

  8. philjourdan says:

    Mother nature loves a good joke.

  9. richard says:

    interesting what is spouted out in the name of AGW but behind the scenes.

    “Canada funds 30-year plan to build icebreakers”

Leave a Reply