A Review of MY Predictions from Day After Election 2008

October 31, 2012 -

-Bryan Baumgart

On the night of Election Day 2008, after it became painfully evident that the democrats had not only gained control of the White House but also super majorities in both houses of congress, I made some predictions for obama's first term in a post titled "And The Wait Is On".

I want to look back on that post and those predictions now:

1.) Iran WILL achieve nuclear capability within the next 4 years. Because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.

With Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Obama will demand Israel hold off on pre-emptive strikes until the Iranian nukes begin falling in Israel and Obama is FORCED to finally get in the game.

 * Though I will admit that Iran hasn't fully achieved nuclear capability at this time, it has actually EXPANDED uranium enrichment and it is now estimated (for the exact reasons I predicted), Iran could achieve weapons grade uranium within weeks and a nuclear device within months.

2.) Fundamentalist Islamic insurgents will overthrow the current democratically elected governement in Iraq and make it the center for the world's terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, focusing on training, recruiting and re-organizing their jihad. Not to mention the certain genocide that will follow the overthrow of the current Iraqi government. Once again, Obama's anti-Iraqi war stance along with his pride will relegate the United States to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.

* It is only fair to admit that I am only partially correct on this prediction as far as specific details; however, I am accurate if you remove the specific country (Iraq) from the statement. Iraq certainly has become a hotbed for Islamic insurgents evidenced by my post on Monday. And we are all aware of the consequences of the Arab Spring movement, which left majorities of the middle east controlled by or sympathetic to anti-American terrorist organizations.  The consequences have been devastating thus far.  One has only to look to the recent terrorist attacks against the American consulate in Benghazi Libya as proof.

3.) America will experience another terrorist attack on the same level or greater than the Septer 11th attacks sometime within the next 6 years. While the Bush administration can be credited with keeping the United States safe and free from future terrorist attacks for all 7 years following the September 11th attacks by keeping Al Qaida on the run and taking out much of its upper-level leaders making it impossible for Al Qaida to re-organize, the Obama administration WILL be credited with doing just the opposite. I could go on to guarantee that after America experiences this future terrorist attack because of Obama policies, the Republicans will go on to dominate another decade of American politics.

* While many terrorist attacks on American soil have been thwarted, the attack in Benghazi Libya on the American Consulate certainly constitutes a terrorist attack on American soil! It would be hard to argue that this attack was on the same level as the attacks carried out on September 11, 2001...but certainly these attacks were devastating for our country.  And unlike the actions of President Bush in 2001, it is revealed that President obama actually played a key role in the outcome and cover-up of the attacks in Libya which left four Americans dead. Note that I said within SIX years.  Because of the deteriorating condition of the middle-east and the increased influence of anti-American terrorist organizations abroad thanks to obama's policies, I stick by my prediction for the next two years!

4.) Russia will not only invade Georgia but also move on to the Ukraine and other former territories of the Soviet Union.

5.) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will begin his goal of realizing the dream of Simon Bolivar by invading Columbia and daring Obama to act.

* I was mostly wrong on both accounts. You have to admit though, that both countries have become increasingly emboldened over the past four years, and have dramatically stepped up their move toward communism. Their cooperation with Iran and other American foes have left us in a precarious situation.  It's no wonder that the dictators of both countries support obama.

6.) Obama's tax policies will make it impossible for our economy to recover, thus...our millitary will weaken and our national security will follow!!

* I get to claim 100% accuracy on this one!!!  Not only has obama increased the deficit over $5,005,000,000,000.00 so far, it is projected to get much worse. The job loss under obama has been so staggering that unemployment actually went down because so many people quit looking for work after all hope of ever finding a job had been destroyed. Tuition is up, food prices are up, gas prices are WAY up, and so is spending under obama. He has spent $16,096,000,000,000.00 so far and plans another $3.72 trillion dollars for 2013.  And this is only the amount congress approved for him.  He actually requested much more. His proposed budget was so crazy that it received ZERO votes; not even a single democrat would back it!  As obama has pointed out recently, he plans to allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire which means EVERYONE'S taxes increase (including the middle class).  It means less money for job creators to create jobs which means unemployment will continue to be stagnant. When obamacare kicks in (the largest tax increase in American history), the middle class will be hit hardest.

What does this mean for the military?  Well as obama also pointed out, he plans to let sequestration go into effect which will effectively gut the military of 10% of it's budget. The Office of Management and Budget wrote, "The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government functions.”

Of course this economic crisis brought on by the democrats may end up being a blessing in disguise for America. Hopefully their won't be money in the treasury for Obama to seek his proposal for national healthcare. Otherwise I would be predicting the mass exodus of doctors out of America and the looming failure of the United States healthcare system.

* Well, I stand corrected!!!  No lack of funding was going to stop this crazy spender from pushing obamacare through!!!  It hasn't even kicked in yet and the doctor shortages are being reported, and with them...the ridiculously long waits for simple procedures as the quality of care has already begins to plummet. A current shortage of over 13,000 doctors is expected to increase ten fold under obamacare.  It has already hit us close to home here in Omaha, where the World Herald reported yesterday that "Thirty-eight employees at the Nebraska Medical Center will lose their jobs by the end of the year, and 100 open positions will remain unfilled as officials prepare for the looming healthcare reforms (aka: obamacare).

I certainly can't say this was fun reminiscing on my predictions from four years ago and realizing the true consequences of obama's presidency.  It is my hope that by doing so, we can avoid the same mistakes we made on that fateful day on November 4, 2008, and provide our country with some long overdue HOPE!!!

BREAKING!!! CIA’s Requests for Help in 9/11 Benhazi Attack Denied as White House Watched LIVE

US military including Special Ops nearby were ordered to stand down & not help as White House watched four Americans brutally murdered and three Libyan prisoners freed. obama makes up youtube video lie to cover-up his actions then lies to American public and UN.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

The truth is coming out now.  Just heard from high ranking officers that said “Ambassador in Peril” coded alert went out immediately as the initial assault begin.  The alert is instantaneous and goes out to the White House Watch Room and EXTREMIS (Special Ops) closest to Benghazi (Sigonella, Italy). After receiving the instant alert the EXTREMIS team would be ordered ready to act within five minutes, and would have been ready and waiting for orders from POTUS.  The watch member at the White House would immediately get the alert to his senior commander who immediately gets POTUS on the line for orders.  The administration is blaming the catastrophe on mixed intel and obama is saying he didn’t know right away, but it doesn’t add up. According to protocol he would have been alerted immediately and HE would have made the decision not to act to save the ambassador and other three Americans. EXTREMIS would have been awaiting HIS decision and standing orders are to “Preserve American Life” so if obama wouldn’t have made a decision (which he certainly did)…then they would have gone in to save the Americans.  The ONLY reason they wouldn’t go in is if ordered NOT to by POTUS.

Just listened to an interview of the father of one of the two fallen former NAVY SEALs. (Woods and Dorherty). They were at a secure CIA annex a mile away from the embassy and heard the attacks.  They asked for permission to go help the Americans at the embassy, but were ordered to stand down. As the attack continued the asked again and were again told to stand down. Three requests to help were denied so Woods and Doherty ignored the orders and rushed to the embassy to help the Americans.  All four Americans were killed because of the White House orders not to allow the Special Ops or help of any kind.  The targets were even pinpointed with lasers by a security officer on the roof and help would have been as easy as allowing bombs to be dropped on the targets by a robotic plane (Specter gunship) in the area (common practice). Four Americans brutally murdered in the seven hour attack because obama repeatedly refused extra security when requested, then repeatedly refused to allow help during the attack. WHY? And why make up the youtube video lie to cover-up? Something is REALLY fishy here!!!  

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/ 

 

CIA Director Petraeus Throws Blame to Obama

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need? 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html  

Tuition Subsidies Causing Tuition Hikes!!!

Posted by Jason Bedrick - Oct. 24, 2012

 

In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama pledged to make college more affordable. President Obama kept his promises to increase grants and expand loan forgiveness, but the cost of attending college continues to rise. As the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center reports today, tuition at public universities rose 4.8% this year. While tuition didn’t grow as fast as in previous years, tuition continues to rise faster than inflation and growth in family income. And, as we know, student debt is exploding. Graduates of the class of 2011 carry an average of $26,600 in student loan debt, up 5% from the class of 2010.  Nationwide debt from student loans exceeded $1 trillion this year,  surpassing all other forms of debt that Americans carry, including credit card debt and auto loans.

The Obama administration’s plan to make college more affordable has involved a massive increase in taxpayer subsidies to students. Even after adjusting for inflation, federal subsidies to higher education have more than doubled in the last decade to over $49 billion in 2011-12. The largest increase occurred in 2009-10 when the federal government’s share of tuition aid dramatically increased from 33% to 44%, with federal spending growing 167% from $26 billion to $44 billion.

Four-year degrees are increasingly expensive but the payoffs are not guaranteed. To pay off the student-loan debt and earn a decent return on investment for the time and money spent on college, graduates expect access to more and better-paying jobs. Increasingly, this hope is in vain. The New York Times reported last year that 22.4% of college graduates under age 25 were unemployed. An additional 22% were working in jobs that did not even require a college degree where their average annual income was under $16,000. Those fortunate enough to find jobs have discovered starting salaries down 10% on average from $30,000 in 2007-2008 to $27,000 in 2009-2010. Moreover, some studies have shown that four-year college students who rank near the bottom of their class earn about the same as those graduating near the top of two-year community colleges, further calling into question the universal value of a bachelor’s degree. It is no wonder then that Pew Research finds that 57% of Americans no longer believe that college is worth the money.

So is more money the answer? Actually, it is a part of the problem since colleges raise tuition in response to increased tuition aid. As my colleague Neal McCluskey explained in his testimony before Congress:

 According to data from the College Board, between the 1981-82 and 2010-11 school years, inflation-adjusted aid per full-time equivalent student — the bulk of which came through the federal government — rose from $4,418 to $13,914, a 215 percent increase. Meanwhile, real tuition and fee costs at four-year colleges grew roughly apace. At four-year public institutions prices expanded from $2,242 in 1981-82 to $8,244 in 2011-12, a 268 percent ballooning. At four-year, nonprofit private institutions prices rose from $10,144 to $28,500, a 181 percent leap.

It is, of course, difficult to conclude definitively from simple aid and price comparisons that aid fuels price increases. But a growing body of research controlling for variables outside of aid supports the hypothesis that aid has an appreciable inflationary effect, though study results vary by type of aid and institution.

It should come as no surprise that subsidies raise prices. Fortunately, there are now a growing number of innovative alternatives to traditional four-year colleges that have the potential to dramatically reduce costs while providing a quality education. Instead of subsidizing the expensive, inefficient and too-often ineffective status quo, government should just get out of the way.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/mr-president-tuition-subsidies-are-the-affordability-problem-not-the-solution/ 

Even a 100% Tax on Income Over $250K Wouldn't Touch the Deficit

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money?

According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income.

If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/eat-rich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

List of Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Ashe Schow - October 18, 2012

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5. AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7. SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11. Amonix ($5.9 million)
12. National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13. Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14. Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
24. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26. Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28. LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29. UniSolar ($100 million)*
30. Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
31. GreenVolts ($500,000)
32. Vestas ($50 million)
33. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35. Navistar ($10 million)
36. Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/ 

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record High

Sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 26. Yellow line shows median September sea ice extent from 1979 to 2000.

Daniel Stone - National Geographic News - Published October 13, 2012

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.

In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday. Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing.
That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level.

While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?

Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.

In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.

Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?

Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming 

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012 

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. 

global temperature changes

Research: The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts. 

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat. 

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume. 

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html