Here is an article that sums up some of the most important developments: "Science Continues to Cast Doubt on Global Warming" by Chriss W. Street. The study shows that it is likely the sun that has caused the earth to warm in the twentieth century rather than Co2.
Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man.The article he wrote on the study published in Nature can be found here and the Nature study itself can be found here.
An article in the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office (the national British weather service) has admitted that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years:
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
And here is a good article to keep in mind the next time someone says something like "All the respected scientists agree on global warming being real . . . " In the Wall Street Journal, sixteen leading scientists sign a letter with the message: "No Need to Panic about Global Warming."
The article describes the decision by Dr. Ivor Giaever to resign from the American Physical Society over its stand on global warming:
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"Dr. Giaever is right. A scientific theory that is described as "incontrovertible" is no longer scientific; it is ideology or religion or something else, but it is not scientific. The politicized way some "scientists" talk about global warming shows that when they talk about it they do so as individual laymen, not as scientists. If they talked as scientists they would always talk in terms of "to the best of our knowledge right now," or "current evidence suggests" or "our latest theories seem to indicate." Something "incontrovertible" is something beyond the reach of empirical evidence to confirm or disconfirm and therefore not an issue that can be decided by science per se. A clash of religious commitments is not the same as a disagreement over the empirical data and their meaning.
The broader context of this issue is the impact of postmodernism and epistemological relativism in particular on science. Marxist and neo-Marxist thought (eg. Critical Theory) is so strong in contemporary Western universities that the whole truth question is becoming sidelined in favor of analyses of which social group benefits from which theory. The idea is that, since truth per se is unknowable, the important thing about a theory like, say capitalism or sexual orientation or global warming or evolution is not whether the evidence supports it but who benefits from society holding it as true.
It is enough to make me long for the good old days in the 70s when I was taught in Philosophy of Science that Christianity is untrue because empirical evidence was against it. In those days, all you had to do to defend the faith was appeal to the facts; it was not just that, but the facts were to some extent relevant.
I thought it was a challenge then, but today it looks relatively easy! Today, the "facts" make no dent in the mindset that believes that objective truth is nothing but disguised self-interest. And when the facts are as useless as a squirt gun, one realizes how difficult the whole "preaching the Gospel" thing actually is.
It is just a good thing we have the Holy Spirit!