Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations. (emphasis mine)
Hunh. So, like, what you’re saying is that in, say, 2005, there was no rise in temperatures. Hmmm. Interesting. Or in 2004. 03. 02. 07. Oh, heck, since 2000. No rise. Wow.
Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. “We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations,” says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.
What? Natural Fluctuations you say? You mean like, warming, just for instance, could be influenced by, maybe, something like the sun or some kind of large, hot, burney thing. You know, like sunspot activity.
Of course, like Ace says, there’s billions of Euros involved, so OF COURSE no one would ever LIE about those numbers, would they? Because it’s science, right? And despite the fact that money is involved, lots of money, those scientists would never fabricate their data by putting thermometers next to heat producing objects, right? They wouldn’t manipulate or game the data so that they could get more funding?
Oh. They did, didn’t they.
What was that about the “science” being settled?