Here’s the short version of that BBC interview. (Wow? Was it really the BBC?) This major re-framing of the story and admission of facts are part of the ClimateGate Virus epidemic. Journalists are starting to ask better questions, and researchers are starting to give better answers. OK, it’s not exactly a grilling, but neither is Roger Harrabin allowing the UN to promote its scare campaign without a few seriously-pointed questions. This represents almost as big a turnaround for Harrabin as for Jones (which I’ll expand on below). Only two years ago, he claimed skeptics were funded to spread uncertainty, and likened them to tobacco industry lobbyists. How must he feel to suddenly discover they actually had a case worth considering?
Cutting to the chase: paraphrasing Phil Jones
Stripped of the extras, Jones’ answers boil down to the following (I’ve added a few things he didn’t say [in square brackets], and skipped some questions ):
A) This recent warming trend was no different from others we have measured. The world warmed at the same rate in 1860-1880, 1919-1940, and 1975-1998. [Kinda cyclical really, every 55-60 years or so, we start another round.]
Hadley Global Temperature Graph with Phil Jones trends annotated on top.
B and C) There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. But, there has not been a statistically significant cooling since 2001 either. [Ladies and Gentlemen, given the natural volatility of temperatures, we can’t be sure that there’s been any real warming for 15 years.]
D and E) Natural forces could have caused some of the recent warming, but I’m 100% confident that the warming was due to carbon dioxide, even though I’ll admit that the natural forces thing is a bit outside my area of expertise. See Chapter Nine of AR4 for evidence.
F).Should we be more transparent with data? Well…yes.
G).If it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, does that bust the idea that carbon causes the warming now? Ah… It could have been warmer, we’re not sure, there’s not much evidence, and I won’t answer that part about “busting anything” directly. [Craig Idso has collected enough evidence to cover a world map showing places on nearly every continent that were warmer a thousand years ago, but the warming still could have been regional….]
H) If this warming is not usual (as I pretty much said in A, B and G), why do I think carbon “did it”? See D (again). [That’s Assessment Report 4 — the IPCC document that’s being mocked around the world.]
I).Is it reasonable to say that carbon dioxide might not have “done it”? Nope. See D. [That’s AR4 again, and try not to notice the extent of the circular reasoning. Thus:
1. The latest warming is not unusual,and it might have been warmer a thousand years ago. 2. Other things might have caused the warming… 3. We assumed carbon dioxide caused the recent warming, then used models to show that… carbon dioxide accounted for the recent warming (you’d never guess). 4. So we’ve “ruled out all the other causes”, even though the models can’t explain what happened back in medieval times, or in modern times either (post 1995). All hail Argument from ignorance!]
K).Should we trust that one tree in Yamal? I’m not going to answer that directly either. Ask Keith.
L).I Phil Jones, rely totally on the IPCC (see all the answers that referenced “D”), but don’t ask me about their practises, and whether they bent the rules and acted unscientifically. Ask them. (Why would I check those kinds of things?)
N)The debate is over? Well, some scientists just said that, I’m not sure why, and it’s not really over. Yes the sceptics could be right.
P) My life since ClimateGate? Not much fun.
Q).Why did I hide the decline? Well, the top researchers all knew that tree rings didn’t show rising temperatures after 1960, but I had to draw these graphs for the WMO. The tree rings all measured temperature pretty well before 1960, but after that, the record fell to pieces, so there was no point putting it on the graph. It’s not like I was hiding something. Look, anyone in the public could have asked any dendroclimatologist, or read papers from Nature on tea-breaks, and known straight away that nobody could really explain why tree rings hadn’t grown faster since 1960. [Sure. And it goes without saying that the public would have no problem with the idea that tree rings were good for nearly a thousand years, then failed as thermometers after 1961. It’s not like the public would ask, “Why are we trusting tree rings from 1380 or 1780, but not 1980?”]
The BBC turnaround
Compare this with what Roger Harribin wrote for an in-house BBC publication about climate science in late 2007, and you can grasp why he didn’t see this coming and ask these questions five years ago. He said, “we have to get the science right”, but then his rationale for how to do it boiled down to “consensus” and majority opinion. How did the BBC decide what to report? It surveyed 140 climate scientists, which is interesting, because even then, nearly one-in-five of climate scientists thought the IPCC was too alarmist… But, the BBC was assessing scientific evidence as if scientists voted for the Laws of Nature.
On one side of the IPCC are some knowledgeable, sceptical climate scientists …
A more extreme position is taken by some libertarian commentators who distrust government and big institutions, and who characterise climate change as a swindle. Their views appear to be supported by hardly any climate scientists.
Then there are the ‘skeptics’ (particularly in the US) funded by big business to run ‘think tanks’ spreading uncertainty and thus delaying action. We need to think hard about how and when we invite these various groups to contribute to the debate. Would we, for instance, serve our audiences by inviting lobbyists for tobacco firms to challenge the scientific links between smoking and lung cancer?
The BBC science team was asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking climate scientists about political organisations, why didn’t it ask these same scientists to state their evidence, and then ask the skeptics to do the same? The true task of a science journalist is not to ask which scientists have paper certificates, but which scientists have the best reasoning. We need to know which explanation stands up to the test, not which explanation has the biggest fan club.
If science journalists had been doing their jobs, they would have spotted the holes and flaws 20 years ago, and prevented billions of dollars being wasted.
The story was picked up by the Daily Mail.
UPDATE Jan 2013: Graph added to illustrate the trends that Phil Jones referred too.
UPDATE 2016: swapped the cartoonified pic of Jones for the real one. I never liked the cartoon.
He must have read the ClimateGate timeline in preparation for the interview! 🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
21
“D/ and E/ Natural forces could have caused some of the recent warming, but I’m 100% confident that the warming was due to carbon, even though I’ll admit that the natural forces thing is a bit outside my area of expertise.”
This is a classic. Scientific Doublethink at its finest.
20
there’s also the double whammy of John Christy’s latest work
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece#comment-have-your-say
20
Just as I suspected Phil Jones is an incompetent liar and his interviewer is a failed softball pitcher.
Weasel answers and wily evasions. The interviewer seemed afraid to ask the real tough questions like: what about the “tweaked” code included with the CRU leak? Not the “just misunderstood hide the decline”.
Or how about: Mr. Jones, doesn’t it appear that tree rings are absolutely useless as thermometers?
This interview looks to me like more of the usual damage control method; “ease” people into thinking that he’s just a humble misunderstood public servant.
Here is my opinion about Phil Jones:
Malfeasance: GUILTY
Fraud GUILTY:
Liar: GUILTY
Ideology over scientific accuracy: GUILTY
Cover his ass to save his career: GUILTY
Is wrong that this is going to blow over: GUILTY
20
Still nothing on the ABC…we wait with baited breathe.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/jones-bbc-interview-missing-in-action.html
20
[…] Rumblings from mother earth, JoNova on Phill Jones, […]
21
Did anyone else get the feeling with that interview Phil Jones has done that he was implying something to the warming camp along the lines of
“help me out here guys or I will take everyone down with me”.
I guess he’s been discovering who really were his supporters vs who was just afraid of opposing him. Sounds lonely and it must leave a pretty bitter taste.
Phil Coming clean could be a good way for science to learn from this shamozzle.
20
Do we really expect a journalist to start questioning the peer reviewed science of emminent Professors ?
Isn’t this episode of Climatology just an exception, which demonstrates how the practise of Science can be subverted, compromised & broken.
It may have been a wake up call, but is Society really going to start questioning every scientific development in this way ?
Aren’t we rather too pre-occupied with popular culture to stop it from all happening again ?
10
And STILL this guff remains on the website of Ed Miliband MP, UK Energy and Climate Change Minister…
“We, the undersigned, believe climate change is real and man-made, as demonstrated by the science, and we must take action as citizens of Doncaster to tackle climate change. Doing so is necessary for the environment and future generations, and can be good for our economy and society.”
—
Stunningly dumb.
20
http://www.edmilibandmp.com/home
Sorry, should have added the link…
20
[…] Mer omfattande analyser finns att läsa på WUWT, JoNova […]
10
Ignorance is not science.
There is no doubt that so-called climate scientists like Jones et al were just environmentalists doing a simple job like sampling tree-rings. Then they hit the big time with AGW. Unfortunately they knew nothing about statistics, software development and even how to archive data. So for years they had to hide their incompetence by hiding the data and codes and controlling the journals and influencing the gullible media and politicians who could see the golden opportunity for control and taxes.
Unfortunately for them, incompetence is hard to hide forever and truth eventually comes out.
Will there be more of them coming out soon? Harrabin on the Radio this morning hinted that he has more to reveal.
20
I think it is a matter of time before somebody turns state’s evidence to save their hide. I am still betting on Briffa. Of course, Phil Jones might do it first. It would be interesting if he does because the guy that gets immunity from prosecution is usually a small player in the scheme of things. The farther up the food chain you are the more you have to offer to get a deal from the prosecutors. Criminals make fair weather friends, as Phil is finding out.
Is there a betting line in Las Vegas yet?
20
Psychopaths. It is common for embezzlment convicts to have bad records, hide records and not cooperate with auditors. They know the facts will convict them.
Tax cheats work the same way.
20
Imagine if we would of held a vote on the Theory Of Relativity!
Do you think that we would have had “consensus”?
Science is NOT a subject that is eligible for voting!
global warming has been proven to be a HOAX.
20
Eddy Aruda said, “The farther up the food chain you are the more you have to offer to get a deal from the prosecutors.”. Or in this case, the higher up the tree the monkey is, the more you see of his arse.
20
Climategate got its own legs now.
Its going be a runaway effect.
20
In a way it is not surprising. Society should have known better asking a relatively small group of people to police themselves, when there are large sums of money power and prestige involved, has never worked. Perhaps it’s time that publicly funded science departments are treated in a manner similar to the way, businesses are treated by the tax department. After all it really is a lot easier to maintain your honesty and integrity when you KNOW someone is looking over your shoulder.
The only thing that really passes for a debate in regard to AGW these days is who will be the first political casualty. I think on the international timetable Kevin Rudd will be the first to face the voters. If he fails or is even severely damaged the retreat will turn into a full-scale paniced rout. It’s amazing how much has changed in just a few short months remember Rudd’s November? speech.
20
I think the way this whole thing has been suppressed in the Aussie media and the continued Denialist noises from Mr Rudds government are more than enough to completely undermine the public’s trust in anything they say.
Now, of course, we Aussies don’t trust our politicians anyways, however, there is an unwritten understanding between the people and the politicians that they must be at least be good enough to not get caught.
And now they’re being caught out. It’s now up to the other parties to put the knife in and turn.
This has got to be the one issue which will completely undermine the publics trust in the pollies.
20
If you read through the article towards the end he starts to come back with the argument that humans are causing warming and claims the extent of the MWP is uncertain. Localised to the NH because only there indicators exist! This guy is a politician he has left escape routes! I would like the ABC to learn some reality and P Jones to admit he deliberately deceived and why.
20
sure you don’t mean Tony Jones as well. Robyn 100m Williams, Tim Flannery, Tony Jones, David Marr all should bury their heads in shame!
20
In this new spirit of cooperation, could someone comment on a riposte sent to me by a member of a Warmist blog?
Mann’s initial “hockey-stick” work was a credible “first-attempt” to compute global-average temperatures from proxy data. There were some issues with his pioneering work — the choice of a short-centered PCA method was theoretically (but it turns out, not in practice) problematic. Anyone familiar with eigenvalue/eigenvector decompositions knows full well that problems introduced by non-centered data can nearly always be compensated for by including more eigenvalues/eigenvectors. (And yes, Mann *did* check his eigenvalues before he continued with his hockey-stick computations.)
Later publications by other researchers refined and improved on Mann’s original work. For example, later reconstructions did a better job of capturing the LIA. (An apples-to-apples comparison of Mann’s 1998 hockey-stick with more recent reconstructions will show that they largely agree during the MWP — it’s during the LIA that they diverge the most).
Soon/Baliunas, on the other hand, was a pathetically bad paper full of freshman-class errors. Soon/Baliunas did not inspire further research work as Mann 1998 did. The only publications inspired by Soon/Baliunas were responses by other researchers pointing out their obvious errors.
How much truth is contained in there and how much standard Warmist agit-prop?
20
I see The West is running a story on the rise of the Libs in polling, and the tough road ahead for Labor to try and sell the ETS (I refuse to use the Government’s acronym, because carbon is not a pollutant):
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6802342/coalition-ahead-in-wa-with-abbott-at-top-poll/
Meanwhile The Australian is running an opinion piece quoting former IPCC Chairman Robert Watson and his call for a new IPCC-like organisation to bolster IPCC efforts:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ipcc-ex-chairman-robert-watson-calls-for-review-of-mistakes/story-e6frg6xf-1225830398677
But neither of these are particularly funny pieces… as always RC manages to deliver at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Gavin still trying to put digits in leaks left and right while the dam wall threatens to burst at any second. A valiant effort in folly methinks. His reponse to the first thread comment is priceless:
The poor man is generating so much hot air and spin that he may exacerbate the next hurricane season single-handedly.
You haven’t sent a “surrender email” perchance Jo? 😉
20
Rick
My maths is pretty rusty, but it doesn’t matter. This warmist response sounds like the basic formula of a shred of truth, wrapped in assertion and Bulldust, then coated with inpenetrable language. It pays to cut through the *rap and bypass the red herrings they have inserted into the argument.
It doesn’t matter how good the maths is, if the basic facts are wrong.
The truth is that trees growing on the side of a mountain make a very poor proxy for temperature on a global basis. To subsequently claim that the trees represent the global perspective, and that everything else (e.g. sea and lake sediments, stalagmite cores, oral, written and archeological history) doesn’t, flies in the face of logic. See “CO2 Science” for a compilation of about 400 papers that say the hockey stick is wrong.
Going back to the mathematics, ask the warmists to give the data to Steve McIntyre if they reckon it’s bullet proof! Last time they did that (kicking and screaming all the way) he had them on the canvas within 48 hours. Keith Briffa’s work was even worse due to the way he picked a clearly biassed sample to obtain a conclusion he wanted. The US Congressional findings were that the hockey stick had a series of irregularities you could drive a truck through.
If the Hockey stick was a first pass affair, why was it splashed all over the IPCC reports as if it were Gospel? How reliable are their other “facts” ? What else aren’t they telling us, or are misrepresenting to us? The reputation of the IPCC and the AGW advocates for scrupulous honesty is looking pretty ropey…
I suggest that you don’t let the mongrels bluff you with side issues that they probably don’t understand themselves. At the end of the day, we only have one question – Is this the truth?
It’s the one question they most hate to answer.
Cheers,
Speedy.
[Thanks Speedy, you know your stuff… — JN]
20
Rick Bradford @ 22:
I think they need to do a little research on the “divergence issue.” This is what spawned the catch phrase “hide the decline” as I imagine they are already aware. There is little to no merit at all in using tree-ring proxies for historic temperatures if they don’t even match the recent thermometer record, which is clearly more accurate.
Why on earth should we assume the last thousand years or so of tree rings are an accurate proxy for temperature when the most recent are not? Fact is, trees make very poor thermometers as there are way too many other variables that will impact tree growth. Tossing fancy scientific methods at a poor proxy ain’t going to make it any better.
You will find plenty of detailed ammunition at Climate Audit when it comes to treemometers.
20
BTW I did a lot of stats in my day and had a class or two on vector analysis… it’s just another fancy statistical technique to try and spot trends in data sets. The technique involves discarding the original variables in favour of new ones, each of which are a mix of the original variables.
Think of 2D space… lets say there is a cluster of X-Y data that is positively correlated. The vector analysis moves the X-Y axes so that one axis trends through the data, and the other is perpendicular to it. Same in 3D, 4D etc nD space for n variables. Essentially the new constructed variables are trying to explain the correlations in the data set.
It’s a crude explanation for a mathematical construct that adds no value to the tree ring data series as a thermometer proxy. Smoke and mirrors if you will. I imagine they would have used it to try and tie up the different proxies to provide a unified proxy temperature series, but I haven’t read the papaers… but it seems a likely approach.
Long story short, and I am getting repetitive… a fancy statistical technique won’t add value to data that have little value to start with.
20
actually Bulldust – it could be the other way around – the adjusted homogenised temperature record does not match the proxies decline in temperature.
20
“3. We assumed carbon dioxide caused the recent warming, then used models to show that”
Taking the teams religious belief in the models, can someone clear something up for me.
The output from the models (a la the discredited hockey stick) shows the increasing temperature continuing, whereas Jones himself says “There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.”
Now, how much has CO2 increased since 1995?
At what point will Jones, etc, stop trying to pull the wool? As for Roger Harrabin…..I would not trust the guy further than I could kick him. He has been largely responsible for the BBC’s biased output and should, along with Jones etc, be sacked at he very least.
Harrabin/Jones, tell it to the school children who have been fed the lies for the last few years in our schools!
20
Angry @15 says
That’s a good point. Relativity did not need consensus or a vote. Einstein was doing real science and proposed explicit tests that could be carried out by anyone to support or refute his own theory.
For example, his paper on the General Theory correctly predicted the rate of advance of Mercury’s perihelion, the exact degree to which star light would be deflected as it passed by the Sun and the gravitational redshift.
With AGW theory, more snow supports global warming while less snow supports global warming, more hurricanes support global warming while fewer hurricanes support global warming and so on.
20
@ Janama 27
You wrote, “actually Bulldust – it could be the other way around – the adjusted homogenised temperature record does not match the proxies decline in temperature.”
A wry observation. I believe the the thermometer data is corrupt (Harry Read Me File, Bolivia effect,deletion of temp stations at higher latitudes and altitudes, etc.) and the tree ring data is unreliable (Wegman Report). I really don’t think it will be much longer before this scandal goes critical mass.
@ Tide Regarding relativity, my favorite quote by Einstein on the subject is, “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”
Happy Valentine’s Day everybody
20
As a skeptic and now denier, I will put to you a new possibility that the warmistas may be partially correct. That is that the northern hemisphere holds 90% of people and land and that possibly there may be anthropogenic warming in the NH. Refer to Roger pielke Sr re land use. Its possible but I doubt it. Would like to hear comments on this
20
Rick Bradford #22
As Speedy has pointed out (#24) the math is inconsequential. You could have the best math in the world, encapsulated in the best models, running on the worlds’ fastest computer systems, but if your input data is garbage, then you are going to get beautifully processed garbage out.
The single, most important problem with Mann’s work is that it is predicated on the belief that the width of tree rings were a reliable proxy for temperature.
But that was only a hypothesis, and one of several. Others include the amount of precipitation; the subsoil composition; the density of the forest canopy at different times; wind variation patterns; etc.
Do you see where this is going? Unless, and until he could discount all of the other hypothesis, for valid reasons, he should not have blindly proceeded with tree rings as the temperature proxy. That is the scientific method, pure and simple.
The other “crime” Mann committed was to recognise that tree-rings ceased to be a good proxy from about 1960 onwards (they did not agree with the measured temperatures- hmm), so he just stitched the measured temperatures on the end.
Two problems with this:
Firstly, if the tree-ring data did not match the measured values either the tree rings were unreliable, or the measurements were. We know now that both were unreliable, but at the time he assumed that the later tree-rings were. His bad. He should have questioned whether the whole approach was flawed in the first place.
Secondly, it is not statistically valid to just stitch data from one source onto another just because they have an apparent degree of correlation over the intersecting period.
I think the record now shows that Jones, et al were not entirely comfortable with the whole tree ring thing [I like the sound of that] – certainly Briffa, who is also a paleoclimatologist, had some initial concerns – but the graph got in front of the bureaucrats at the IPCC and their eyes lit up with glee. No way, was it not going to be used after that point.
All of the maths arguments are just a smoke screen to hide the fact that the whole thing was one dumb idea in the first place.
20
I totally agree that there are serious questions that need answering regarding the thermometer data sets, especially the GISS set which fills in holes where even CRU dare not go. However, I sincerely doubt that tree ring proxy temperatures are more accurate than the thermometer sets. Sadly it is difficult to discern the truth when both sets of data are dubious. This reminds me of the corny stats joke:
Borrowed from:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Statistics.html
21
Rereke Whaakaro:
Did you see ole Caleb’s post on WUWT a few months ago? Scientists were arguing the toss over the accuracy of treemometers for ages and in strode Caleb with no fancy degree but decades of forestry exprience. He described a whole lot of annecdotal cases he had witnessed where trees had suddenly grown rapidly or become stunted because of situational issues. You could almost hear the sound of jaws dropping. Effectively Caleb had won the internet that day 🙂
As has been stated many times here and at WUWT… good data is the source of good science. Poor data in ==> garbage out.
20
vg: #31
There may be some credence to that position.
When you consider that the northern hemisphere holds the UN, the US Senate, the US Congress, the British Parliament, The EU, etc. there is a good case to be made for a greater output of hot air.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that.
But seriously folks, I have seen some comment (which I do not have a reference for – my bad) which points out a clear difference between surface land temperatures and surface sea temperatures, the latter being somewhat lower due to subsurface convection. The paper was presented by a hydrologist but I can’t, for the life of me, remember his name.
20
VG
In purely scientific terms, it is never possible to say impossible…
Norther hemisphere warming – it certainly happens – refer to urban heat island (UHI) effect, but this tends to be pretty localised. We tend to forget that 72% of the earth is covered in ocean, and we humans tend to congregate in patches within the dry bits…
Like the CO2 “greenhouse” effect, it is likely to be real, but not necessarily relevant.
Cheers,
Speedy.
20
@MattB
Remember this?
Richard S Courtney:
February 13th, 2010 at 2:11 am
Matt B:
I notice that you are trying to find excuses to renege on your bet (no surprise there)…So, you made the bet. I accepted it. You have lost it. Pay me!
BTW, When I was on my iphone at the hospital visiting my Mom I didn’t have my reading glasses. Even so, I do make typos. The difference between you and me is that I normally check my post before I click on “submit comment.” The next time time see a wavy red line under a word you may want to investigate, or would that constitute research you will only do if you are paid?
20
Bulldust: #34
Yes, I thought Caleb did a great job.
But you must understand; Caleb is not a qualified climatologist, his opinions have not been peer reviewed, nor have they been published in a reputable journal. Therefore we will ignore this “research” as being unsubstantiated. /sarc
20
Eddy
It seems you have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man…
I wouldn’t be spending that 10 grand as yet. Maybe consider it as a donation to the betterment of society and move on?
Cheers,
Speedy.
20
[…] *Image courtesy of JoNova. […]
20
I would like to see Andrew Neill interview this so called scientist.
20
@ Speedy
I know Matt will never pay Richard S.Courtney as that would mean he has character and keeps his word. That being stated, I am not about to let him slide on this one. The guy never rebuts an argument and usually responds with an appeal to authority. Well, based on Mr. Courtney’s credentials, I’d say he is an authority. Like the Visa commercial goes, “Computer $3000, internet access #35/month, slow roasting MattB…priceless! Seriously, nobody expects Matt to pay. He let his keyboard write a check his ass can’t cover. He reminds me of a football as he seems to be getting kicked all over the place. I believe if his feet are put to the fire he will either have a moment of clarity or quit posting. Either way, it works for me. The problem with us skeptics is that we don’t fight fire with fire. I agree with JLKrueger:
JLKrueger:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I’m a soldier.
In my line of work, when you have the enemy down, finish them off!
The job isn’t done. We need to drive the stake through the heart.
JLKrueger was referring to the AGW fraudsters in general and not to any specific individual. Still, it works for me!
20
i have seen monckton/lambert debate twice on a-pac and once (omitting all questions from the
audience) on sky news, which resulted in a complete misrepresentation of the
debate in toto. in real time, i attempted to watch it on SMH, but failed to
get any sound?
up to now, i have not been able to find any video on SMH, A-PAC or Sky, and
nothing is so far on youtube, plus there is no transcript.
my understanding is tim lambert is a computer scientist at the Uni of NSW. i
wish to point out what i believe is professional malpractice on his part in
the debate, given the warmists are claiming lambert’s use of pinker to rebut
monckton’s interpretation of her work means lambert won the debate:
tim lambert: In ideal world I could have had Rachel Pinker appear from
behind the curtain to tell Monckton that he was wrong about her paper, but I
was able to do the next best thing…. Then I played a recording of a female
colleague with an American accent reading out Pinker’s message to me on how
Monckton had misunderstood her work. It was as if she was there.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php
anyone who watched the debate knows that lambert did not inform the
moderator, monckton or the audience that this was not prof pinker speaking;
on the contrary, he made it appear it was her responding. on the audio he
played, the woman begins by saying ‘i am aware’ of how monckton is using her
work etc., yet this is nowhere in the pinker link from lambert’s site below.
lambert said he would post prof pinker’s statement to him on his blog, but
this is the only link on there as of today. note the URL does not give the
date in february. her comments state early on:
rachel pinker: While our work dealt only with the variability of solar
radiation reaching the ground at a global scale, it is legitimate to
interpret the results in a new direction, as was
attempted by Mr. Monckton.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf
to be continued
20
what would prof pinker think of mr. lambert falsely representing her at the
debate? did prof pinker merely respond ‘yes’ to a question by lambert as to
whether or not she was aware of monckton’s interpretation? why didn’t
lambert include prof pinker’s statement that it was ‘legitimate’ for
monckton to interpret her work as he (and others he has consulted) have
done? the University of NSW needs to respond to this deceit by lambert and
lambert should apologise to prof pinker and monckton, and the members of the
audience.
interesting: how could dave at pro-AGW crikey know the pinker audio was read
by a third party?
crikey: Dave Gaukroger: In a great strategic move he opened with a number of
points where both he and Monckton were in agreement, before carefully and
concisely dissecting Monckton’s miscalculation of climate sensitivity in a
wonderful one-two combo of, first, using Ian Plimer’s own data to
reconstruct the calculation, then using an audio quote of Professor Pinker
(as read by a third party) refuting Monckton’s claim…
Get me out.
I had just witnessed an ugliness I knew existed but had never seen. It didn’t
lie with Lord Monckton…
The fault certainly didn’t lie at the feet of Tim Lambert either. He won the
debate, but was crucified by superior showmanship and a bloodthirsty crowd.
It was the audience that caused my panic. Six hundred-odd denialists in one
place is an assault on all that is good and holy. Those who had already made
up their minds – why bother turning up for a debate to hear both sides? How
many more are there who share the same fractured thought process? How
widespread is this flat-Earth mentality?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/02/15/gish-galloping-tinfoil-and-the-climate-of-discontent/
if lambert imagines my family were the only ones who believed he was playing
a pinker tape, think again:
lucia: The tape by Pinker is by Lambert is *masterful*…
lucia: The masterstroke was a) Knowing Monckton would use the paper and
lucia: b) contacting the author to say Mockton was wrong.
lucia: Audiences are never going to read the paper during the debate
lucia: So even if they can figure things out for themselves, Lambert’s move
was GREAT….
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/monckton-lambert-debate-our-chat/
Catherine said… I especially liked Tim’s recording of Dr Pinker…
guthrie said: Apparently it wasn’t a recording of the real Dr Pinker, but an
american woman reading out what Pinker had written. Good showmanship and
also a way of showing Monkcton’s research was bad, since apparently he
refered to Pinker as a he…
Lewis said… Picking up on what guthrie said, Tim’s accompanying slide (p.
11) makes it clear that Prof. Pinker’s e-mail was read by P. Furst.
catherine said: @ guthrie + P. Lewis – oops, my bad! Still a good stunt.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/02/lambert-v-monckton.html?showComment=1266150027384
andrewspectrum: Lambert got comment from a scientist quoted by Monckton. The
scientist said Monckton misrepresented her work.
brendanofsydney: Then Lambert comes on stage and has a statement by Pinker
that describes specifically how Monckton personally had misinterpreted her
work and how the sensitivity was actually higher as stated by the IPCC. If
the crowd had been able to appreciate how devastating this one critical fact
is to Monckton’s argument, then Lambert would have been declared the winner
and everyone could have gone home early.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/been_there_before_and_survived_beautifully/P20/
now, try to find WUWT or CA threads in google “NEWS” and you will not get a
single link, but click on ‘NEWS’ on a “tim lambert” search and it results in
not only multiple links to lambert’s blog, but also the link to crikey’s
hatchet job on monckton and skeptics which i’ve linked above.
http://news.google.com/news?q=tim%20lambert&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DAAU_en-GB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
nice al-gore-ithms as usual, google.
20
“Having no evidence to support one’s case” is a very sad condition to find one’s self upon having demonized their critics.
(It seems that in Jones’s mind, this condition made him a “victim” who had “no fun” any more.)
20
You should remove that doctored picture of Jones, at once. Descending to this sort of adolescent crap is what is expected of the other side. I have no time Mr Jones nor Mr Mann, both are clearly scientific crooks.
20
Eddy – if you can find a passage where I agree to a $10,000 bet with Richard S. Courtney can you please show me. Otherwise shut your arrogant fatt-assed yank clap trap.
20
Eddy
I agree. You won’t get the money out of him but you may have started him thinking. Krueger? Personally, I think that having shot down Mann, Jones, Hansen et al in flames, it’s a good idea to machine-gun the wreckage.
Reminds me of a lawyer joke –
Q. Wwhat do you do if you’re trapped in a room with a tiger, a snake, a lawyer and a gun with two bullets?
A. Shoot the lawyer/AGW twice…
Trust your mum is coming along.
Cheers,
Speedy.
20
Reading my own comments, decidedly unchristian and I wish to clarify.
Please don’t shoot any lawyers/AGW’s etc… It’s not nice.
10
Pat – I agree with you entirely – It wasn’t until I read the actual reply from Dr Pinker that I realised Lambert had only told half the story!
Dr Pinker also said this:
10
Just to clarify Courntey offered $10,000, at 2:1 in my favour, meaning I’m only up for $5k, if there were such an actual bet in existence. I’m trying to trach down Richard’s paper actually, but all I can find is: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-astounding-diplphil-courtney.html.
I may give Eli the head’s up that there is $10,000 on the table and he can have 50% of the takings for helping me out.
10
Poor Gracie must be so confused, she may need counselling!
10
A Running bet on this sort of thing might be just the thing to get average Joe sixpack interested in science and to actually listen to the perspectives?
It sure would make any debates more lively and interesting (better than betting on cockroach races, surely). Maybe have some footy at half time?
10
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
If you read his reply to me at the time of your bet you would have learned that the paper needs to be purchased.
However Richard gave a presentation of this paper to the Climate Conference held In New York, on 2 to 4 March 2008.
This is a 19 page presentation paper that includes a synopsis, the equations and graphs and a summary. You can get the pdf version HERE.
Have fun reading it
10
Yeah I thought I may be able to scrounge a freebie that’s all Humbug. And I’ve been away camping for the weekend (new kombi van) so not really been too worried about tracking down a journal article that the entire scientific community has clearly ignored for lack of worth. Thanks for the PDF – an hour of my life I’ll never get back.
10
Also Humbug you may notice on another thread I’ve asked Richard if he has any comment on why the IPCC ignored his paper? if he made suggestions as an expert reviewer that it be considered, and if they gave feedback as to why it was not. Just a bit of context nothing cynical.
10
Why David Evans bet against Brian Schmidt over global warming
My husband David was very keen to take a bet three years ago, and it took months to organize. Brian Schmidt was still keen to take other bets last I heard (and even invited me to bet with him in comments on this blog back in early jan 09, because he didn’t realize I already had a bet with him by default…). Anyone interested could approach him. Brian was very civil to deal with. I would suggest though that you be very careful about the conditions of how the “win” or “loss” would be decided… and yes, right at the moment we are feeling quite happy with our bet, though we have a strong suspicion that by the time any money is handed over, inflation will have wiped out the value.
10
pat:
February 15th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Very well done Pat. Keep digging.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Monckton doesn’t have a response at SPPI some time very soon.
10
Very wise words Jo “I would suggest though that you be very careful about the conditions of how the “win” or “loss” would be decided”
Would you be comfortable if David paid up for losing the bet if Brian Schmidt just posted a link to a paper published in a journal by himself that you had never seen or heard of and the rest of the science community ignored or derided? And if Brian just said “here is the paper you owe me a previosuly undiscussed amount of money.”
10
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Funny you should bring up “reviewer comments” Matt.
I spent 4.5 hours downloading reviewers comments and review editors responses and that was only for the SPM and chap 1 and chap 9 of the AR4.
These are available at the Harvard Library on line but must be converted to pdf max 10 pages at a time. (for instance the chap 9 1st order draft and 2nd order draft total 313 pages #$%$#@)
What I did glean (so far) is that review editors don’t always fully explain why they reject a reviewers comments.
I’ll give you an example in the next post. (gotto serve a customer)
10
Review comments..
Chapter 9 comment No: 1-181
Reply by review editor (D Karoly was one of 3)
My take on this: Considering how the term “peer review” has been jammed down our throats for years, it is now patently obvious that this has been an outright lie.
Also note the editor responded only to in-preparation papers but no word on unpublished papers.
And whats with the “not NECESSARILY” inconsistent? Why not “not inconsistent”?
10
Baa Humbug:
I thought the reviewers remarks regarding Kenneth Carslaw’s criticisms were quite telling. I have them linked on a previous thread (around page 20 or so of the Ch9 review – also pages 2-3, if memory serves). Essentially Carslaw highlighted a basic logical fallacy in the IPCC documents and the reviewers rejected his well-reasoned comment saying that their use of the word “likely” justified the IPCC version.
10
@Matt B
You wrote, “MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I can’t find the post but I’m sure he offered 2:1 odds.
Here is the whole exchange for you Matt. I am happy to be of service
MattB:
February 11th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?
Richard S Courtney:
February 13th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Matt B:
At #77 you say;
I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
I accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.
Please read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Then please find any reference to it in any IPCC Report.
The paper assesses all the known interactions in the carbon cycle and concludes from this
In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising. Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle
It goes on to say;
In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modeled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.
It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole.
Our paper considered three models of the carbon cycle. Each model assumed that a single mechanism is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has happened in the recent past (i.e. since 1958 when measurements began). The model was then compared to the empirical data to determine if the modeled mechanism could be rejected as a sole cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Each of the three models was used to assess if the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration could be attributed to
(a) a purely anthropogenic cause
and
(b) a purely natural cause.
i.e. a total of six models.
This attribution study determined the following:
Each of the models in this paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration. This finding agrees with the statement in Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) that says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.
When you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.
MattB:
February 13th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Richard do you need my bank details?
MattB:
February 13th, 2010 at 1:05 am
Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?
Richard S Courtney:
February 13th, 2010 at 2:11 am
Matt B:
I notice that you are trying to find excuses to renege on your bet (no surprise there). At #293 you ask me:
Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?
The paper I referenced was published in Energy & Environment (E&E) before I was invited to join the Editorial Board of E&E. But now I am on the Editorial Board I am fully conversant with the peer review procedures of E&E.
I do not know how you could have become so mistaken as to assert that Energy & Environment (E&E) is not a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps you are citing lies from UnrealClimate.org. But you could not be more wrong. The peer review procedures and standards of E&E are more severe than those of several other journals including, e.g, Science and Nature.
For example, the now infamous ‘hockey stick’ of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) was published in Nature although its authors refused to allow open access to its source data. That paper would have been rejected for publication in E&E because the standards for E&E peer reviewers could not accept that refusal. However, the MBH ‘hockey stick’ papers were first disproved by peer reviewed papers in E&E (refs.
McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)
McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)).
Some other quality journals adopt equally strict rules to those that peer reviewers for E&E must apply when considering papers for publication. For example, Philosophical Transactions B of the Royal Society (Phis Trans B) also insists on open disclosure of source data. So, Briffa discovered that he had to disclose his source data or withdraw the tree ring ‘hockey stick’ paper he published in Phys Trans B, and that disclosure resulted in the ‘Yamal Controversy’.
Raising the standards of peer review in popular journals such as Science and Nature to the standards of peer review practiced by E&E is one of the good things which it can be hoped will result from resolution of the Climategate scandal.
So, you made the bet. I accepted it. You have lost it. Pay me!
Baa Humbug:
At #295 you ask me;
Is there a link where I can download your paper pls?
Sorry, but no. The paper needs to be purchased from Elsevier Science Publishing as a past publication and (being on the Editorial Board of E&E) it would be improper for me to provide it. However, I gave an exposition of it at Heartland-1 where I quoted it extensively so you can see the video of that on the web or, alternatively, I will send you an email of that presentation paper if you email me at
[email protected]
10
Eddy you only needed to copy and past this bit:
“I accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.”
That is only a $5,000 non-bet from me.
10
Bulldust:
February 15th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Yes Bully. You would have also noticed the literally dozens of comments by Vincent Gray regards the use of those terms “likely” “very likely” etc and all rejected one after another.
I guess that means we now have a “consensus” of 1998 scientists, not 2000 🙂
10
@ MattB
You wrote
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Eddy – if you can find a passage where I agree to a $10,000 bet with Richard S. Courtney can you please show me. Otherwise shut your arrogant fatt-assed yank clap trap.
I believe from my post at # 63 that Mr. Courtney took you seriously. Will wonders never cease. I am a “Yank” and proud of it. As usual, you revert to ad hominem attacks. I am waiting for the appeal to authority followed by a straw man and the inevitable segue. Seriously Matt, when I asked you to cite evidence you said you would need to be paid to do so. Well, pick up an easy US$20,000. The bet was US$10,000. If Courtney pays off at 2:1 that is an easy 20k in your pocket for doing a little research. You may want to begin by substantiating your claims about his paper being essentially worthless.
10
Phil Jones might be showing some signs of weakening but I hope he still is charged and if found guilty put behind bars. I have no sympathy for liars and fraudsters.
10
@ MattB
Why don’t you email and ask Mr. Courtney to clarify whether he will pay 20k or if you lose you owe 10K or 5K. I would love to see him post here again. It should be entertaining and enlightening.
[email protected]
10
Eddy Aruda:
February 15th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Hi Dirty Eddy. Hope mom doing well.
I have to agree with Matt re: non-bet. He was too chicken to accept. But is still clucking none the less.
I have a big white rooster named “Vinnie” (after Diesel) and I see what he does to his 8 “ladies” many times per day.
Maybe we should nick name Richard “Vinnie” Courtney 🙂
10
The main argument left for AGW seems to be that the models don’t work without CO2 being a driver. But as soon as they published the model results, the actual temperatures went the other way. Surely that means the models have no predictive power, even with allowing for CO2 as the driver. That just means the models are useless at this stage, and perhaps always will be since weather is chaotic. The amazing accuracy of the “postdictions” shown when they printed the results says that the modellers were “tuning” their models to match measurements as they came in, not predicting results in advance.
Since the models don’t work without CO2 being the driver, and don’t work with CO2 either, the logic is as silly as:
The models don’t work without allowing for Leprechauns. The models don’t work with allowing for Leprechauns. Therefore warming is caused by Leprechauns.
10
Gee wiz Matt, maybe your right. Still, you will only do research if you are paid. You can pick up a cool 10K. Come on Matt, after bashing the guys paper it is the least you can do.
10
No Baa I’m on the hunt, I think even Richard would accept that dissection of his paper, to earn $10k, would take more than an hour or so. believe me I’m up for the challenge and look forward to having Eddy pressure Richard to pay me.
Also – I fully expect that when I am unable to find just cause for the IPCC’s dismissal of the paper, and am converted to skepticism, Richard will gladly take my conversion as being at least worth $5,000 (AUD I assume as I’m an aussie and Richard appears to reside in the land of the pound).
I don’t have $5k, but will gladly take a gentlemans’s bet of honour where I will dutifully repent.
p.s. Eddy no need to email Richard – it is clear he is prepared to put up $10,000 at 2:1 in MY favour. AS he is putting up $10k that means non-$5k for me.
10
@ Baa Humbug
Matt obviously missed the olive branch I extended at #253 of Jo’s “The great collapse of the global warming myth.” Still, having to view it may constitute unpaid research and as we all know, MattB is a highly rated scholar and his time is extremely valuable
10
@ MattB
Are you going to put your money where your mouth is?
10
@ MattB
You wrote, ” believe me I’m up for the challenge and look forward to having Eddy pressure Richard to pay me.”
Wow Matt, You Da man! I will be more than happy to “pressure” Richard if he doesn’t pay up. Who will referee the bet?
10
@ MattB
I will get with Richard right now via email and get the ball rolling!
10
also I’m addressing questions to Richard in the original thread. I’ve posted 2 or three questions about what seem to be unreferenced “hunches” in his introduction. I’ll keep going but from 1st glance it appears the paper is
“CO2 emissions are added at a steady but increasing rate, but the atmospheric CO2 concs are not. They should. (this is the bit I’d like to know where he gets “they should” from the presentation PDF from Humbug does not have a reference for that claim although a lot of the rest is referenced). Since they should but they do not… AGW is debunked.”
But anyway if you are interested in this keep it to the original thread so it can be followed.
Humbug I know you are a skeptic but I’ll split some of the cash with you for your assistance in showing Richard that the IPCC had reasonable grounds for not considering his paper. (Note I don;t think I need to disprove the paper, just that the IPCC omitting the paper does not contradict my statement that they used the best science that science had to offer at the time.
10
Eddy – money schmoney – honour is the key issue. All I’ll demand from Richard is that he announce here that the IPCC’s omission of his paper does not nullify my statement that they used the best science on offer at the time.
At 2:1 odds he has to do it twice. I hope you take my word that I’m not a rich man and $5000 would be a serious slug to my financial status (and my marriage), wheras for Richard it would just be a drop in his superranuation ocean.
10
@ MattB
Matt, I have a sense of humor but enough is enough. You do have guts but you may want to think this through. He is a professional, well trained scientists and you may want to remember that financial problems are the leading cause of divorce or so I am told. I can’t provide a source for that but it seems true from what i have seen.
10
Eddy I think you are confused… My last post means I’ll wager my honour, but no $$$:)
But believe me I’m on to it!
10
@ MattB
No problemo. I just fired off an email to Richard. Remember the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!” Go get ’em, tiger!
10
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
No need to offer me pieces of silver Matt. My only advice to you is to get the actual paper ($8-$9) like I did the Lockart paper after I saw American Thinker refer to it. (rebutting Karoly et al paper)
It will be nigh on impossible to find out why the IPCC authors didn’t consider Courtneys paper. Considering it is peer reviewed and published, your only hope is to find contradictions in the paper to the IPCC findings.
I’ve read plenty of comments by Courtney and he strikes me as an honourable person. He also has courage to go against the orthodoxy especially since carreers like his can be made or broken by such actions. Having considered all that, I would have thought twice (and thrice) before attacking him without a full gammut of information at my fingertips.
You made your bed Matt. Would you like Vinnie to cuddle up to?
10
@MattB
Thanks for clarifying that the bet was one of honor. Normally, people bet one dollar in these situations. when I saw your offer to “split some of the cash” with Baa Humbug I thought there was money involved. glad you made that clear at # 80.
10
Yeah sorry Eddy I was not as clear as I could be. $1 it is – that was my “Trading PLaces” bet earlier. Remember that classic 1980s flick Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd was it? I was just edding Humbug on to change sides for a while.
10
@ MattB
Good luck Matt. I am going to hi the hay. It is almost 12:30 AM and I need to get some sleep. I am sure when I wake up there will be plenty of interesting posts to read!
10
This is payday. As for “finishing them off” J L Krueger style? They seem to be coming out with their hands up. What I don’t forget though is the malicious smearing and damage they have done to a lot of careers and a lot of people. They are indeed criminals so yeah……..maybe an air strike. I’m in particular awe of the main armament on the A-10 Thunderbolt. Would that do Mr Krueger?
It’s called the GAU-8 Avenger for those interested. See youtube.
10
No worries Humbug… I coulda made you famous;)
Actually though Humbug I think you’ll find Richard made the bet, not I, and no bet actually stands as confirmed. And I made no comments about him before he came out of the blue and made the bet.
10
Let’s not get too excited. The warmists are on the defensive, but not yet in retreat. Take the hyperbole on Climate Depot with some reserve. I note that most of the MSM still aren’t running with this, and governments are generally acting as if it’s not happening. Well, why would they, it’s an irresistible opportunity to tax the air, the ultimate bureaucratic wet dream.
We must not let up the pressure lest one or two small victories make us complacent. Support Watts, McIntyre and the others at the cutting edge.
10
Levelgaze #88
I can understand the caution but this one has lost it’s Mojo. No significant warming in 15 years? Is that “cheering news” Greenies everywhere gasping at the disclosure. Jone’s has thrown away the script and get ready for more.
10
matty#89
Just saying…. VERY powerful vested interests here. Gore is pin money aside the likes of the Rothschilds, Maurice Strong and (maybe most of all) George Soros.
10
LevelGaze #90 – speaking of Gore
A warmer mate of mine was just having a gripe today – “where is Al Gore. He has gone missing” (Quote) They seem to be missing out on leadership. There is always Monbiot, but is he quiet too?
10
janama
“sure you don’t mean Tony Jones as well. Robyn 100m Williams, Tim Flannery, Tony Jones, David Marr all should bury their heads in shame”
Damn Right!!
10
“Stop sniggering at me or my head will explode” – Phil Jones.
10
Matt B and Eddy:
I have responded to all points concerning the subject of the bet on the original thread.
The facts are plain for all to see.
Matt B made the bet.
I accepted the bet.
Matt B has lost the bet.
Matt B is trying to find any excuse to renege on the bet that he offered.
Please remember that if the IPCC did use “the best available science” then they had a duty to explain why they made no reference to our paper (if only to say why they were ignoring its conclusions).
Our paper presented six different and possible exlpanations of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and demonstrated that none of them – n.b. not one of them – can be shown to be wrong by use of available data. Furthermore, the IPCC adopts an explanation for the rise which requires the use of 5-year smoothing of the data which cannot be justified by any known physical mechanism (but their explanation does not work without that smoothing). None of the possible explanations we examined requires any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as 5 year smoothing to get it to fit the data.
The “best available science” never ignores contrary data: that is avoidance of science. So, the fact that the IPCC did not mention our paper is prima facie evidence that the IPCC were not attempting to show they were using “the best available science”: the IPCC was merely presenting the “science” that fitted what they wanted their readers to know about. (This is directly analagous to the ‘hide the decline’ issue mentioned in this thread where the failure of tree rings to represent temperature after 1960 was not openly shown but was replaced – or overlaid by – other information).
As you both say, the money is not the issue here. Matt B and other warmers make false assertions concerning peer review and the IPCC’s propoganda. As I said in an email that replied to Eddy’s email to me;
“The misuse of peer review by the self-titled “Team” and the misrepresentation of IPCC propaganda as being “the best available science” require publicity, and that publicity is what I hope to achieve.”
So, Matt B, pay me, pay a charity, or – if you cannot afford to pay up – admit that you were wrong to make a bet that you have clearly lost.
Richard
10
Richard if you continue to lie about the bet’s origin re: my paying up, then even the honour bet is off as it is clear you have no honour. Get back to me when you are prepared to step up from kindergarden level of discussion, heck don;t even step that high, just get above E&E level of peer review and we are back on. Sorry I was approaching this in good faith but it is clear that you are not.
10
Matt B:
OK. You are clearly without honour and you lie.
In the “Not FOUR degrees ..” thread on this blog I wrote;
Since then you have posted your comment here at #95 and have induced other desperate excuses on the original thread. I have answred all of them.
You made the bet. You have lost it. Your present behaviour is making you a laughing stock.
I will only answer your points concerning the bet on the origial thread.
Richard
10
Must admit I’m a [luke]warmist and think there’s enough evidence for us to take no chances and prepare plans for adaptation to AGW. But, ClimateGate has me puzzled. First, I don’t see the importance of the hockey stick. Even if you accept it at face value, the huge uncertainty in the purely dendro record (before about 1600) makes the whole thing useless. It could mean that there’s a 1 in 20 chance of temperatures 1000 years ago being warmer than now or ludicrously cooler. Yet the uncertainty is just mentioned in passing, without even a clear indication of how it is calculated. More to the point, why is Jones doing these interviews? The Muir Russell inquiry won’t complete for a couple of months and Jones’ university has just announced another inquiry into the science of CRU – whitewashing the whitewash – in advance! Whatever, Jones should not be doing any interviews at the moment, it just preempts the inquiries and stirs things up needlessly. I would have thought the university would really want things to die down until the inquiry results are published. So why is Jones being allowed, even encouraged, to do this?
10
For whatever one opinion is worth: Phil Jones may yet spill even more of the beans as the saying goes. When first exposed he wouldn’t budge an inch from his, we did no wrong position. Time gnaws away relentlessly at the defrocked. And Jones doesn’t display the fortitude much less character necessary to resist.
10
Who will be first to turn states evidence? Phil Jones is a good candidate.
10
Good summary, Jo – but at item H I think you meant “unusual” not “usual”.
10
MattB lost the bet!!!!
HOHOHOHO!
10
“Wow? Was it really the BBC?”
In 1990 BBC4 had a documentary – dated now, but of some interest – ridiculing the “CO2 is the biggest if not only climate influence” position –
CO2 Hot Air
By 1991, sadly, ths science was “settled.”
10
@ Richard S. Courtney
I am a skeptic and an admirer of you. Although MattB may have been speaking figuratively about betting he is incapable, based upon his past behavior, from posting a response to requests for empirical data to bolster or support any argument or claim he makes. Sorry. I did enjoy seeing MattB shoot his mouth off and get called out for it. Matt reminds me of a Borg from Star Trek. He is part of the collective and incapable of independent critical thinking. I don’t know what is going to happen to him when the global warming house of cards comes comes crashing down. He is quite content to accept an appeal to authority (the IPCC) and seems unlikely to comes to grips with reality. Your efforts are appreciated, thank you.
10
Guys stop posting about the bet in this thread or Richard S. Courtney dipphil will get cross.
10
I see Real Climate is nerd raging at the Dail Mail article on Phil Jones. Jim (Bouldin), the author of the vent, is doing the RC site and argument no favours with some choice responses to blogger comments. No wonder WUWT gets ten times the hits RC does. Some choice responses below:
As always RC delivers my daily amusement… the arrogance of those chaps knows no bounds. This is how “real cvlimate scientists” behave is it?
10
Too bad you chose the usual dishonest route and “paraphrased” rather than giving his real answers. That way you can spin it the way you want it. Not surprisingly you have falsely reported the interview. Such blatent dishonesty is really embarrassing.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978048543
10
Poor old Jim Bouldin got pulverised (in the nicest scientific manner) when he commented at Climate Audit some time ago.
He descended into bitterness and it looks like he still retains it. Go outside for a moment Jim and smell the roses…..
10
David, I know it must be tough to see your hero roasting on his spit. Why don’t you offer your own paraphrased version so we have something to actually discuss? Throwing about words like “dishonest” (especially ironic given that Jones is the subject) without backing your statement up is bad form.
10
David, Thanks for the delightful link too; sentence right after the first paragraph:
Obviously a really well balanced and unbiased web site you got there……..
10
ThosThos:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:28 am
“More to the point, why is Jones doing these interviews? The Muir Russell inquiry won’t complete for a couple of months and Jones’ university has just announced another inquiry into the science of CRU – whitewashing the whitewash – in advance! Whatever, Jones should not be doing any interviews at the moment, it just preempts the inquiries and stirs things up needlessly. I would have thought the university would really want things to die down until the inquiry results are published. So why is Jones being allowed, even encouraged, to do this?”
An interesting speculation at Thomas Fuller’s blog is that Jones was firing a couple of warning shots across the bows of the inquiries. If the findings are too personally adverse for him, he will “spill the beans”, much to the detriment of the Government and its green agenda.
10
Yeah, look its all going to topple, Ive been scowering the B.O.M data for australia, inland temps nothing to site but coastal wow its warming, could be that double el nino hanging off the west oz coast. Pity about the north hemisphere. One point though I go along with changing the vocab in this programmed debate. AWG are in a cult, call a spade a spade. The globe simply doesent come down to ‘your bad your CO2 is responsible for the future destruction etc etc. So wise up people this is a propaganda war. Labels dont help, move on.
10
I went to the debate with Tim lambert and Cris Monckton, currently doing his victory lap regards no significant warming from 1995, and basically both were out of step with CO2 rise. Greening of the biosphere is taking place. Good but increasing Co2 about 39%. Here this people. Human contribution about one fifth or less of 39%. The audience was led to presumme 39% was all human contibution. WRONG from both camps. Sourse ‘CO2 seasonal cycle’ site Co2 Science. It pays to study, and be sceptical.
10
Alex Heyworth:
At #110 you pose the question;
“More to the point, why is Jones doing these interviews?”
It is always a mistake to consider a person’s motives for an action because the motives cannot be determined with certainty even by the person whose actions are assessed.
However, it is reasonable to assess what any person has to gain from his/her actions. In this case, Jones has much to gain and nothing to lose.
Any university would lose credibility and funding if it were to announce that one of its leading researchers and/or research departments had behaved fraudulently. So, academia will do all possible to say, “There is nothing wrong”.
The universities that employ Mann and Wang have already investigated their actions and have exonerated them from any malpractice (these are extraordinary conclusions especially in the case of Wang).
But, Climategate shows – beyond doubt – that much was wrong at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). News of this is freely available and is widely known so it cannot be covered up. Therefore, damage limitation will be applied.
The damage limitation must attempt to show that there was little wrong at CRU and UEA but there were a few (probably one) ‘rotten apples’ in the ‘good barrel’. The attempt requires a scapegoat to be sacrificed, and it has been clear from the start of Climategate that Jones is to be a (probably the) scapegoat.
In this case, Jones has little if anything to lose: his career and professional reputation are certain to be damaged and are likely to be destroyed. He needs to reduce these losses and to protect his pension, and he would very likely to seek legal advice on how to do that.
In this circumstance, any lawyer would encourage him to present a limited set of statements that would
(a) present him and his actions in as good a light as possible,
(b) suggest that if anything was wrong then it was minor, inadvertant and not criminal,
(c) suggest that others were at least as implicit in whatever was wrong.
Jones has been interviewed in writing and has provided written answers. The “interview” was by Roger Harrabin who has consistently been a supporter of Jones and the CRU.
Those answers – being written answers – were each considered statements that may have been prepared with assistance from a lawyer. They say book-keeping and archiving of data “could have been better” and “more transparent”, recent global temperature has not risen (so Jones is not among those guilty of ‘hiding the decline’), and Jones is open to alternative interpretations of his work (e.g. from “skeptics”).
Simply, the written ‘answers’ from Jones in response to written questions from a friendly journalist have all the hallmarks of being an opening statement from a defence lawyer acting on behalf of Jones.
Richard
10
Richard S Courtney:
February 18th, 2010 at 1:19 am
I agree. I have a further thought that this written interview also lays the ground work for any possible future “turning of evidence” if the climategate situation gets worse. Jones surely knows a lot more of the internal politics of AGW. He can name names and probably has some incriminating evidence. He was there at the very very beginning of this scam.
Time will tell.
10
Richard: Spot on! I am in a quandary right now. I have been in touch with our local parliamentarian representatives, and my favorite one still hasn’t put down the climate change science as … bull! Incorrect,and motivated by Carbon Trading Investment companies, the UN IPCC (for what ever worth they have proven anyway) So … despite my own studies in the area and research for over 10 years since the Al Gore … thing! I found Prof Bob Carters U Tube interview in New Zealand spot on! Well he could have echoed the Uni studies I have been associated with.. so I wasn’t wrong either, or politically motivated to doubt the science (if we can call it that – myths regarding AGW and also the measures to cut CO2 emissions or pay for it at our peril).
It’s a shame that a Royal Commission isn’t established in Australia
because the fall out of this climate change/warming debacle could have serious implications to Australians generally. As there will be
those who believe by denying any ETS tax is going to alter the climate, will effect CCT investments world wide. $200billion dollars already invested in some schemes?) And also if developed
countries who have at least seen the light don’t go ahead with cap and trade or ETS taxing, undeveloped countries will see us as opting out of our responsibilitiesto prevent global warming and the subsequent alarmist theories that will effect them detrimentally.
I do believe this climate gate scam and those who have promoted it
(illegally in my mind), have and could start what could be seen as a crime against humanity.
The rats are leaving the sinking ship as Richard suggests and covering their backs and fronts in the meantime. I think Richard
has some legal background (am I correct?) Because I feel the CCT
investment schemes are a bit wobbly, and from what I believe the BBC
have invested their pension scheme in Carbon Credit Trading Investments.
Maybe we should blame Hollywood too, giving Gore that academy award,
that made billions of people believe in ‘his ideology’ that has made him millions of dollars and frightened the life out of them with his dire predictions.
10
Richard
The beginning of an “exit strategy” was quite plausibly put there.
Courtesy of abcnewswatch here is the latest on the (non)reporting of the Jones revelations in the land of Oz by the national news organisation.
(As an aside I found it interesting that +0.12C trended per decade (over 14 years) was “close” to being statistically significant but -0.12C trended per decade (over 7 years) is NOT statistically significant.)
“Jones’ BBC Interview still missing!
As of 6:45 am 16 February 2010 a search of the ABC website still finds no mention of the BBC interview with Climategate scientist Dr Phil Jones conducted on 13/2/2010. The clock is running out.”
Truth is the first casualty of war
10
Richard I also couldn’t agree more.
Me in #4 above: This interview looks to me like more of the usual damage control method; “ease” people into thinking that he’s just a humble misunderstood public servant.
I don’t think we should underestimate that this IS what they are doing. Pressure needs to be applied quickly so that they have less time to come up with a plan and strategy.
It is all so Clintonesque….
10
Well all of you, spread the word to your various politicians,
and also write letters to the newspapers where ever you live.
After all politicians should be seen as acting in the best interests of their constituents, and they can’t see the wood for the trees, they should deserve to be unelected.
Because in politics (from my experience) the elected party if they don’t catch on to what the general trend is within their
electorate, and just adher to party lines irrespective, they deserve to be undone during the next election date.
AND MATT B POST 47, WASH YOU MOUTH OUT WITH SOUP.
10
Sorry Matt B, I meant SOAP! lol
10
Bush bunny:
At #115 you ask;
No, I am not a lawyer and I have no legal expertise of any kind.
However, I have served as an elected official at each level up to and including the National Vice President of a trade union (affiliated to the UK’s Trades Union Congress: TUC) for professional people. Hence, I have experience in defending people in similar positions to that now being suffered by Jones and, of course, I have worked with specialist employment lawyers assisting the defence of those cases.
My union positions have all been lay (i.e. unpayed).
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding my post may have provided.
Richard
PS Union elections are the ultimate in peer review.
10
I like the current consensus on Jones motivation better than mine based on my assessment that he’s depressed. But I still think he’s depressed.
In any case Mark D. is right. Poor misunderstood public servant he’s not. A lot of letters to the editor, TV stations and to East Anglia University by those in a position to do so would be a place to start, then letters by the ton to your MPs too. I don’t know what other pressure could be used.
Sometimes I wish we had those big machines on stilts the Martians used in War of the Worlds (the movie).
10
Roy and Richard? Maybe the AGW supporters are awaiting the second coming so they can say we are on the way to salvation. Anyone guess to what comes next as those who believed in Gore, will turn on them when it dawns on them that they have been conned. They will turn it into their advantage by saying it was the Carbon Credits Trading Investment companies that hoped to make Billions now they have lost most of it, because they went along with a lie. Serve the filthy rich right!
10
Richard? What part of UK do you live in? I’ve still got some
cousins who live there. But even you know, that in parts of Great Britain, during the last ice age the nearer the Artic circle
the more effected the land was by glacial cover. When I lived
there I lived in Lincoln for a short time. A most temperate zone and we had water restrictions in 1964/65. They only grew grapes and citrus fruits in big glass houses. Now I believe they have a wine industry? Although I believe it is not as
good as Australian wines, yet any.
Yet the Scilly Isles provided us with strawberries months before
we grew them in England. I now live in Northern NSW and we are
3500 ft absl, and can get snowed in, and temps can plunge at night only to minus 15 degree C. We occasionally have experienced day time temps with a wind chill factor of minus 11
and yet even where I live on top of a ridge, I am 5 degree
warmer than my galfriend who lives down in the valley 2 kms away and it frosts regularly in winter. My friends in UK, hadn’t heard we have snow fields in Southern NSW and Victoria.
So what is the difference with that 5 degrees, I do not spend money on heating my house like my galfriend does. I can grow
better veggies, and my tomato plants produce a month or so longer than in the valley.
And they are worried about a mere 2 degree increase!
Got to go, it’s my dogs ‘tummy time’ and when the clock chimes
5 they get all noisy and pestering me if I don’t get their bowls out.
See you later folks keep passing the word along to your politicians and write letters to the Editor. I get phone calls from strangers who say “I agree with you” “Go for parliament” (No Way Jose). And there are many out there who would agree with us, they instead believe in the scammongers!
10
Bush bunny:
You ask me:
Cornwall where wild palm trees grow (yes, really; e.g. one has sprung up in my back yard).
Typically, Cornwall gets snow about once in 5 years, and it is gone in less than a day. This is the second year in a row that Cornwall has had snow, and this year it settled on the ground for days.
People are more influenced by their own personal and anecdotal experience than by scientific evidence. This failing induces many pseudo-scientific scares (i.e. autism and innoculations, cancer and power cables, etc.) but – in this case – the snow has helped to damage the pseudo-scientific myth of AGW.
Several factors have combined to rip apart the veil hiding the truth of AGW from the public. These factors include Climategate and failure at Copenhagen followed by the drip-drip effect of repeated exposures of falsehoods in IPCC documents. The internet has informed the public of these matters.
But the public and mainstream media would probably have ignored all these factors if it were not that much of the northern hemisphere was coated in snow (and nobody could ignore that).
I note that several people in Australia have posted here that much Australian media has not yet reported the statements by Jones.
“More snow, Vicar?”
Richard
10
Richard S Courtney:
February 18th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Jones isn’t well known by the general public down here. We need something regards Aussie scientists (no names but we know the ones)
10
Richard: When I flew back from Cyprus in 1963 we flew over Europe
and the snow cover was continuous from Greece onwards. The RAF station we land on had to clear its runway, big blocks of ice on the sides and we skidded I remember. But the pilots wanted to get back for their winter ball. The Thames froze over at Windsor, and I remember wearing my sheepskin coat all through the following summer. I froze even in Lincoln. I remember the next winter, my young baby was wrapped up with sleeping bag
and hot water bottle in his crib, and the inside temperature
of his bedroom was 28 F. That’s cold eh?
People blamed the bad weather on Atom bomb testing? But during
that winter London had be declared a smoke free zone, and people
were burning coke or coal lite only.
But that person David K suggests Jo has meddled with Phil Evans
script of the interview, is it on U Tube yet?
10
wilbray: I don’t know how they can test the C02 contents accurately for increases. Depends on what time of day, season and if there is cloud cover or not. Wind factor and what elevation it is taken from. And where it is tested over a long period of time. If it is in a city like LA or Beijing there is lots of pollution too.
I know when I drive down in the valley of my town, where
there are more older homes and light industry, you see the fog white as white and underneath there is a thin layer of brown from wood smoke. Most of the homes on the South and North sides of town possibly up 300 feet higher than the lowest point in the CBD, are more modern homes, with oil or gas heating and have done away with open fires and slow combustion stoves and enclosed wood burners. But down where they live is the burn off
from the hospital and drifting down is from the University incinerator too. Once the fog or mist lifts the brown disappears too. (We have the highest airport in Australia, ie
3500ft absl and fog settles in the lower areas of ground. Sometimes in winter and spring its misty as the clouds have come
down low, or that is what I say it is.
Cloud cover will trap all heavy particles like smoke and greenhouse gases and when it clears or fog lifts the CO2 will
either be absorbed naturally, or drift off into space
Maybe someone with more technical knowledge would tell me how
they test for CO2 in the atmosphere. ACCURATELY!
10
This is most likely because cold air is heavier than warm air. The valley is colder because the cold slides down to the bottom.
This sounds like another weather phenomenon, the temperature inversion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_%28meteorology%29 which is kind of the same reason you have warmer temps higher up. It is a colder air mass over ridden by a warm air mass. the boundary of the two masses creates a barrier where smoke, soot etc. won’t cross through (until a wind develops that mixes the air.)
Neither of these are because of Co2 they are simple atmospheric physical phenomenon.
10
If the valley runs North / South then it tends to get shorter hours of daylight (later sunrise & earlier sunset). If the valley runs East / West then winter is more bitter but summer is about the same.
10
The valley runs South North, well near on or rather the creek runs that way. And we are quite high, and get snow and frost of course. Frost regularly down in the valley, when no cloud cover, up where I live, not so bad. Snow – well – doesn’t last long where I live, although once every 25 years we have a big
one, that will last for days.
But we are high up on the Northern Tablelands. We are not a crop growing area, like wheat etc., so much as cattle, fat lambs, and super fine wool, potatoes. Basalt soil. It’s part of the New England region, and if anyone has been there you’ll know why it got it’s name. It’s green. Well usually. Lots of deciduous trees grow on the Table lands. We are considered
wet temperate.
10
Yet as I said – The New England area contains many microclimates.
Down on the Liverpool plains, they grow cereal crops, beef, sheep
(wool but not so fine as on the Northern Tablelands) just 115 kms
down on the slopes and plains. Further up – in the Guyra area
they grow mixed crops, fat lambs, fine wool and potatoes. So
how can you make rules for the planet to suit all the different
climatic zones, as well as the two hemispheres. You can’t!
10
Tel: How about the Nile River? Runs South to North.
10
Please can someone advise. If, as per Phil Jones, the rate and amount of the 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 warmings were statistically identical to the 1975-1998 warming, what caused the two earlier warmings?
10
Adrian:
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:12 pm
The $64,000 question. According to alarmists, the earlier warmings were “internal variability of climate.”
But they are sure (95% no less) the 1975-1998 warming was caused by evil men and their fossil fuels.
However, if you talk to HONEST scientists like Nir Shaviv and many others, they will tell you that the greatest percentage of warming and or cooling in any past climates was caused by the suns variability, the oceans response to that (as a source of heat sink) and the formation of clouds due to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s)
Who to believe who to believe?
10
Baa, that HAS to be worth more than $64K these days.
Adrian
Well, if you ask me; that bright little yellow ball in the daytime sky that has all that warm feel has something to do with it…..
10
Mark D & Baa Humbug & Adrian.
Urban development, damming large rivers (like the Nile) deforestation (like in South America) will create their own
micro-climates. Fishing in the Delta region off Egypt, was diminished after the Aswan Dam was created. The influx of regular fresh water and no silt killed off the plankton the fish ate. Didn’t effect the Levant though, and that’s only a couple hundred miles away from the Delta by sea. If that.
However, after 30 years the fishing has recovered.
Deforestation of large areas of forest, does alter precipitation patterns that can effect areas 200 miles away. The reason being cloud cover goes higher without the trees transpiration volumes. However strip clearance has less of an
effect.
In Winter my home is on a ridge about 200 – 300 feet higher than
in the valley 2 kms away. My house is 5 deg C warmer in the
winter. And when it snows, it settles longer where I live than
down in the valley. As urban developments send up more heat.
That’s a simplistic explanation.
Clouds or 95% of Greenhouse gases, are developed from sub atomic
particles joining up with water vapor particles from the oceans.
However solar activity e.g. sun spots divert cosmic particles
away from the planet, so less cloud cover. Nothing we can do
about that. And it depends on where you live on this planet too. The angle of land masses from the sun.(The latitudes they cover) Like up North in some regions they have less sunshine in winter etc. Alaska, Norway, the Hebrides have the land of the midnight sun (No wonder they lack a National sense of humour LOL) Down in the Antarctic is the same. To me it is
basic first year Uni studies so when I saw and heard of Al Gore’s predictions I queried his ‘science’ about AGW. When he
and UN IPCC got the Nobel prize and the Academy award, I nearly
died of frustration. Where were the scientists who could refute
this, all silent. Well we know now why.
10
Cosmic Rays (sounds like something from a Sci-Fi movie, eh?) Are believed to be created by Super Nova’s, someone suggested “Is that why we are getting more cancer? Well, who knows eh? But they
can penetrate everything. One of the American astronauts mentioned this he saw some specks of light penetrating his visor. He thought they might have been gamma rays. I can’t remember which one, I’ll Google and find out.
10
I think if Adrian Googles cosmic rays, it will answer a lot.
It seems that these sub atomic particles are more numerous when
there is no solar activity, sun spots, flares and solar wind.
I think if someone wants to be really studious, check out the records of solar activity and if they correlate with either
drier and hotter or colder weather.
There are other variables too involved like where humans live
and urban developments around the globe. But in the last glacial period, most of Earth’s population was down South,
Non in the Northern America’s, Asia and Europe. Some around
the Levant, and Southern Europe and parts of South America. But Australia was populated.
We’re an Ice Planet, enjoy the warmer weather as warmer means
more rain for food production and animal production.
10
That’s a rather wide, flat valley. Not much different from the surrounding plain (other than where the water is). I was thinking of a deeper mountain valley.
10
The Swedish Initiative slams Phil Jones, effectively saying Jones lied and perjured himself.
“Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit”.
STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
via WUWT
10
Yeah: The BBC interview seemed to me somewhat phrased indifferently. Why wouldn’t it be, the BBC has invested its
pension fund in CCT’s. And from what I have read Britain is
spending billions on wind turbines, even though people have been disillusioned by their ineffectiveness, expense and
ugliness including the noise they make. Two acres of land for their concrete slabs, and the effect on wild life, that fly into them and are chopped up.
Someone has been making heaps from clean energy and EU is
finding out it’s problems are directly involved with this now,
that the IPCC debacle didn’t come to any proper solution.
Well let’s see if Dr Jones is exonerated by the Commons investigation. As the IPCC review panel exonerates Dr Pachauri.
10
I have to say, Phil Jones definitely knows how to keep you guys talking. Look at all this comments! nice.
10
Leon,
I’m not sure what you mean. But Phil jones has definitely been the gift that keeps on giving. I suspect he’ll have even more to give before it’s all over.
10