Posted by Co2sceptic on Feb 12th 2013
views 43,038
Image Attachment

(Fast Forward to 26:00 for Andrew Bolt and Craig Emerson Debate)

Attention Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade in the government which gave us the carbon tax.

Last week you claimed I was wrong to say the world hadn’t warmed for 16 years.

So I showed you even the IPCC couldn’t find any measurement showing any statistically significant warming for around that period.

You refused to apologise or retract.

So I showed you an easy-to-read graphic showing no statistically significant warming for between nearly 16 years and 23 years, depending on the measurement used.

You refused to apologise or retract.

Today I will try again. Professor Sinclair Davidson has recalculated the temperature of the past 18 years using HADCRUT3 data and agrees: from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.

Craig, will you now apologise and retract?

Minister, when the facts change, do you change your opinion?


Cut & Paste helps Emerson by summing up in an easy-to-read way the counter-evidence he must address.


Thanks to Emerson for calling into our 2GB show a few minutes ago (click on the link to listen). I had hoped to have a calm, point-by-point discussion of the science, but I am afraid it degenerated quickly - and I suspect this wasn’t just because I am too impatient for answers and too quick to respond.

I hope to transcribe bits of the discussion tomorrow.

In the meantime, Emerson’s arguments against there having been a pause in the warming for some 16 years were three-fold. Let me go through them.

Emerson’s first argument: The Met has noted that the past decade was warmer than the previous one. (Read the Met’s argument here.)

Status: fail.

I pointed out, this does not contradict the proposition that there has been a warming pause for 16 years. It’s like saying I’m wrong to say my 18 year old hasn’t grown this past year, since he’s been taller these past five years than he was the five years before. There was indeed a warming from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s that has left temperatures at an elevated plateau. The temperatures remain high, but any temperature rise over the past 16 years is still nil or statistically insignificant.

Emerson’s second argument: Various global warming authorities say warming has occurred over the past half century and is man-made.

Status: fail.

Global warming has occurred over the past half century and may - or may not - be largely human caused. But this does not contradict the proposition that there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 16 of those 50 years. Again, my son has grown over the past 18 years, but that is not to say he’s grown over the past year.

Emerson’s third argument: Global warming authorities say warming will occur in the future and is man-made.

Status: fail.

I agree that global warming may well resume, perhaps even this year, and it may or may not be man-made. But this does not contradict the proposition that the past 16 years, at least, have had no statistically significant warming. My son might have one final growth spurt, but that does change the fact that he hasn’t grown over the past year.

I hope I’m not being unfair to Emerson in summing up his arguments or in taking this chance to try to extract them from the yelling, filibustering and complaints of interruption and write them down here for greater clarity.

After all, a massive carbon tax has been imposed on the economy, and $10 billion of green energy schemes are being funded, on the basis of a belief by Emerson and his colleagues that the world is heating dangerously, thanks to man.

I think the world hasn’t heated at all, at least not by anything statistically significant, for 16 years and Emerson and his colleagues ought to know it and change their policies accordingly.

I am profoundly depressed that Emerson refuses to accept the facts and offers only patently flawed and misleading arguments to rebut the truth. I cannot believe he truly believes in his arguments, and am angry with myself that I did not make my arguments so clearly that he could no longer deny them. Need You!