Skip to content

The Guardian’s ‘100 months to save the planet’ was always just a fantasy

October 9, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




Booker follows up on my post last week:



You may not have noticed, but 2016 was the hottest year for over 100,000 years. At least this was the claim reported last week by The Guardian, under the headline  “Planet at its hottest for 115,000 years thanks to climate change, experts say”.

The “experts” in question are a bunch of US scientists led by James Hansen, the former Nasa employee who did so much to set the great global warming scare on its way in 1988. And of course such a claim could only be made by ignoring all the evidence that the earth was actually hotter than today during the Mediaeval Warm Period, less than 1,000 years ago, and even more so during the thousands of years of the Holocene Optimum, following its emergence from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

But Hansen and his gang do not stop there.  They argue that we can only hope to save the planet by finding ways to suck vast quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere, at a cost, they estimate, of up to $570 trillion. That figure which may trip off the tongue, but it equates to seven times the world’s entire current annual GDP, or $77,000 for every human being now alive.


British explorer Lewis Gordon Pugh (right) kayaks past polar ice in the Arctic British explorer Lewis Gordon Pugh (right) kayaks past polar ice in the Arctic Credit: Jason Roberts/AFP Photo


If this only shows how dottily desperate some of our wilder climate alarmists have become, we may come back to earth a little by focusing on another version of the great climate scare which also got The Guardian very excited eight years ago, when it launched a campaign under the heading “The final countdown”. This proclaimed that we then had only “100 months” left to save the world from “irreversible climate change”: soaring temperatures, melting ice caps, dangerously rising sea levels, more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and all the other familiar harbingers of catastrophe.

Now those “100 months” are up, it has prompted the diligent Paul Homewood to publish on his website, Not A Lot of People Know That, a set of graphs meticulously compiled from official data. The show what has actually happened to the earth’s climate in these past eight years. Despite the 2016 El Nino spike, now rapidly declining, satellite measurements still show that the trend in global temperatures has not risen for 18 years.


The Guardian's online article with the headline "THE FINAL COUNTDOWN" and a caption "100 months to save the world" above a vast picture of the Earth viewed from space This went well!


Far from the ice caps melting, the total amount of polar ice in the world is almost exactly the same in today’s Arctic and Antarctic as it was when satellite records began in 1979. Despite all those computer models predicting otherwise, the rise in global sea levels has been barely detectible, not having accelerated in more than a century. Despite Hurricane Matthew, there has been no increase in the incidence or power of tropical cyclones. Tornadoes in the US have been at a historic low level. The number of severe droughts across the world since the first half of the 20th century has actually declined.


All the computer models which predicted these horrors were programmed to assume that they would be the inevitable result of that increase of CO2 in the atmosphere which has steadily continued all through these past 100 months. Yet not one of their predictions has come true. Indeed the most startling of Homewood’s charts (taken from the BBC website, no less) shows that the most obvious consequence of the rise in CO2 has been its effect, as plant food, on the “greening” of the planet, helping to boost a dramatic rise in crop yields across the world.

Yet to all this our politicians remain wholly oblivious. The irony is that 2008, when global warming hysteria was still at its height, was the very year when they landed us with the Climate Change Act, committing us to spending hundreds of billions of pounds on “decarbonising” our economy, at a time when other countries, led by China and India, are planning to increase their own “carbon” emissions by far more each year than the UK’s entire annual contribution to the global total. Until that totally insane Act is repealed, we really are heading for national suicide.


For those who missed it, my post is here.

  1. October 9, 2016 12:33 pm

    Ar I posted yesterday on Open Thread: “Christopher Booker gives our host credit where credit is due”.

  2. Oliver K. Manuel permalink
    October 9, 2016 1:00 pm

    The Standard Solar Model
    The Standard Nuclear Model
    The Model of Big Bang Cosmology . . .

    are all parts of the fantasy designed to hide reality that Einstein (1905) discovered, Aston (1922) measured, then Weizsacker (1935), Bethe and Backer (1936) obscured the exact mass (m) stored as energy (E) in atoms of the chemical elements that comprise all matter.

    That flaw in the definition of nuclear energy is illustrated by the sloping base-line across the top of Figure 2:–social-costs-from-overlooking-this-power/

    National Academies of Sciences will either correct this obvious error or they will be an seen as an obvious part of the tyrannical misuse of science to enslave humanity.

  3. Broadlands permalink
    October 9, 2016 1:11 pm

    “But Hansen and his gang do not stop there. They argue that we can only hope to save the planet by finding ways to suck vast quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere, at a cost, they estimate, of up to $570 trillion. That figure which may trip off the tongue, but it equates to seven times the world’s entire current annual GDP, or $77,000 for every human being now alive.”

    The cost is trivial by comparison with the task. Hansen et al. urge that we lower atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm back to 350 ppm, which is 100 BILLION metric tons of CO2 to capture and store. Even if it could be done, where will they put it? How long will it take? A completely absurd path we are on?

    • October 9, 2016 6:23 pm

      I get 400 billion metric tons – partly due to CO2 being 50% denser than air & the ppm counted by volume. (Not that it matters!)

  4. October 9, 2016 1:16 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Superb example of climate alarmism in action, debunked by ‘inconvenient’ real-world data, across all the popular metrics favoured by alarmists.

    Nice work Paul and Mr Booker.

  5. Oliver K. Manuel permalink
    October 9, 2016 1:33 pm

    The neutron rich cores of ordinary stars and galaxies fragment and emit neutrons that decay into hydrogen. It is the conversion of compacted neutrons into interstellar atoms of hydrogen that powers the expanding universe. The volume change of each particle is V(f)/V(i) = 10^39

    • October 9, 2016 2:06 pm

      So the H2 molecule has only 1/(2 x 10^39) the power/energy density of a neutron? That is a lot of ‘squzzen’ to get it back! How does this compare to a neutrino if such is physical?

  6. A C Osborn permalink
    October 9, 2016 2:15 pm

    It really is apity that the DT stopped comments, because I am sure there would have been plenty for that article panning both the Scientists and the Gaurdian.

  7. NeilC permalink
    October 9, 2016 2:54 pm

    Hope you had a good, well deserved break.

    Well done Paul & Christopher. Sooner or later these prophets of doom will get their dues. Reality versus their “concensus” forecasts, projections or predictions, which ever is in more this week. Reality will always win.

  8. CheshireRed permalink
    October 9, 2016 10:21 pm

    Theresa May has a chance to slow the nonsense. Hinckley C was probably too far down the political tracks to ditch but the same cannot be said for shale gas – which must be developed without further delay, and the absurd Swansea tidal project – which should be terminated with extreme prejudice.

    Upon winning the next GE she should then set about repealing the ludicrous Climate Change Act itself. Out of the EU and no CC Act. Liberals everywhere will go into meltdown. That would be the surest sign possible that we’re turning things in the right direction.

  9. clipe permalink
    October 10, 2016 12:45 am

    I doubt Christopher Booker chose the images and video accompanying his article.

    The same subterfuge was used by CBC on Rex Murphy’s Climategate op-ed.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      October 10, 2016 12:51 pm

      A classic. Great stuff from Rex.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: