Prof. Phil Jones says no warming in last 15 years.

[guardian]

1. Professor Jones told the BBC that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

2. Professor Jones further said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

3. The science is not settled.



So is it STILL a big lie to say there has been no warming since 1998? Let me guess. Professor Jones must be

a. on the payroll of big oil
b. a knuckle dragging idiot denier
c. not a real scientist
d. doesn't have sufficient climatology background
e. it doesn't matter what he said because it wasn't in a peer reviewed publication
f. a heretic who must now be ex-communicated from the church of AGW doom
g. a lying sack of shit who is scrambling to save his job now that the AGW scam is unraveling week by week


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[Don Caballero]

1. Denying climate change will not make it go away

The deniers are out in full force.

[guardian]

2. So is Prof Jones a 'denier' now? n/t

[Don Caballero]

4. This story is a lie. Just spreading anti climate change propaganda

Take this stuff to one of your Reich Wing forums.

[guardian]

5. Then please post

in this forum either (a) the newspaper's retraction or (b) Professor Jones' denial of the statements attributed to him in the article. I'll be waiting.

If Professor Jones really did say those things, is it still a lie?

[timeforpeace]

17. This religion does not allow you to change your mind. That's blasphemy.

[Aviation Pro]

3. h. subscribing to the solar high period....

...of limited sunspot activity.

[ananda]

6. I think Jones is suffering from an abuse syndrome.

The attack machine is huge and vicious, on a witchhunt
against science and scientists that report on AGW and
how it works.

There is also a pressure being applied to universities
and institutions that funding will be revoked if they
don't change the science, so to speak.. and this means
that jobs and livelhihoods are at stake.

[guardian]

8. non-sequitur

>>>There is also a pressure being applied to universities
>>>and institutions that funding will be revoked if they
>>>don't change the science, so to speak.. and this means
>>>that jobs and livelhihoods are at stake.

Can't be. I've been told numerous times in this very forum that true scientists and academics are pure, and not motivated by things like funding or saying something just to keep a job.

So which is it? Is your assertion wrong, or is the assertion that academics are above monetary considerations wrong?

[tinrobot]

32. That's true only when they're not receiving death threats...

Threaten a man's life, threaten his family, who knows what he'll say...

[guardian]

38. So you think Phil Jones is now lying?

That his answers in the interview are fabricated? That what it sounds like you are saying.

[tinrobot]

42. Actually, the Daily Mail is lying...

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

43. Why don't you read what he actually said?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. He says there's warming, but not significant at the 95% significance level

The interview:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

This is about whether the trend is statistically significant; and it's harder to get significance in shorter periods.

"There has been no global warming since 1995" is a total misrepresentation by the Mail.

[HeresyLives]

10. LOL you beat me to it.

Daily Mail is a rightwing tabloid in the UK...piece of junk.

[guardian]

18. Yes but

Daily Mail has good global warming reporting from a non-doomer perspective. I also frequently go to Al Jazeera for certain new stories. For some things Al Jazeera is heavily biased and can't be trusted; for other things they can be quite good and provide a side of the news difficult to get in other forums.

Everyone has their bias and perspective shaped by their own personal experience. I think one must go to multiple sources, with different perspectives, to figure out what is really going on.

[HeresyLives]

19. You read trash.

Daily Mail probably has a whole section on goat-sacrifice.

They're certainly big on the tragedy of Beckham's Bunions.

Science isn't about your 'own personal experience', it's about data.

If you went by your 'own personal experience' you'd assume the earth was flat.

[guardian]

40. it's about data.

Would that be the fabricated data?

[beardown]

33. You left off H.

Jones must be...

H) Selectively quoted from the article to virtually the point of outright lying about what he said.

Wow, a seven choice multiple choice test. It must have been tough going to a college that threw that kind of tests at you. No wonder you hate scientists. :)


"a non-doomer perspective"

So are non-doomer's folks who contest and fight every doom theory out there like the Sun eventually expanding and destroying the Earth or are they specifically global warming deniers who are trying to hide their true agenda?

[guardian]

11. Quick. Sacrifice a goat. We need its blood for AGW Kool-Aid.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.





-0.12C per decade? A decline? How can that be? 2009 was the hottest year on record! A regular fucking burning inferno. Quick let's get some stories about a heat wave in Australia!

[HeresyLives]

15. It's 115F in Rio, you probably have snow.

[guardian]

21. I don't think you know the difference between climate and weather.

n/t

[HeresyLives]

22. It's not me having the problem with such distinctions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Wow, your massive wit and wisdom has us all bowing down in awe

Have you finished writing irrelevant fantasy yet? I post the actual interview for what you pretend to be interested in, and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly?

What a fucking waste of space this thread is.

[guardian]

23. Sounds like you need a refill.

Time for communion?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You continue to lower the standard of an already shitty thread

Your reading material, the Daily Mail, is full of lies; you copy those lies here; when those lies are pointed out to you, you make up a strawman about "2009 is the hottest year ever" and then make pathetic comments about the strawman; and then you just accuse everyone of drinking Koolaid and worshipping something.

You have no interest in finding out truth on the subject of climate. You just pick up the most ridiculous dogturds you can lay your hands on from climate deniers, and then pat yourself on the back.

[guardian]

26. Where is the lie?

The subject of my OP was "Prof. Phil Jones says no warming in last 15 years." The article I cited said that "Professor Jones told the BBC that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

The interview snip that YOU posted said

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. "


I think a clear case of Kool-Aid overdose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. The thread title is a lie; you have copied it from the Mail

Jones said the trend in the past 15 years is positive. Therefore "Jones says no warming in last 15 years" is a lie.

You are continuing to ignore reality. The Mail does it for profit (it has lots of right wing readers it wants to sell newspapers to). You appear to do it for fun.

[guardian]

29. ROFL

You're really stretching on this one. That's the best you can do? I hear desperation in your words as the Holy Church of AGW Doom crumbles.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Respected bloggers say the same

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

It's plainly a lie. Jones says the trend is up; the Mail lies and says he said 'no warming'.

I know this thread is the best you can do, sadly. It'd be refreshing to see a post from you in the E/E forum that wasn't a steaming pile of shit.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chemisse]

14. Statistical significance is a bitch to attain sometimes

I remember struggling over this through my college chemistry years, and being utterly deflated when my research project showed results, but they weren't statistically significant!!

People concerned about clusters of cancer in small communities face the same obstacle. Unless the sample numbers are much higher, it is possible it all could've happened by chance.

[HeresyLives]

9. What he actually said:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Context please

Don't read a story about an interview, if you can read the actual interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

...

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

...

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

...

[DCBob]

13. This guy has been receiving death threats from the wacko right-wing deniers..

He might say almost anything now to have his normal life back. Furthermore, Jones is the not the sole keeper of the data. NASA and NOAA also have their own set of data which confirms warming trends. Amazing how hard the deniers are working to convince us this is massive conspiracy. Fools.

[guardian]

24. That's wrong for people threaten anybody.

There are dangerous nuts on both sides of this issue. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats"

[tinrobot]

31. He even contemplated suicide because of the death threats.

Prof Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, said his "David Kelly moment" – a reference to the Government scientist who killed himself over WMD claims in the lead up to the Iraq war – came as death threats poured in from around the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

"David Kelly moment" brings up more than just "suicide" in many people's minds.

To refresh people's memories -- David Kelly was the weapons expert who was about to spill the beans on Iraq's non-existent WMD's. If he had come forth with his information, the case for the Iraq war would have been seriously undermined. Amazing how he died at just the right moment, and he had remarked to a colleague that he might be found dead in the woods if Iraq was invaded. A few weeks later, he was found dead in the woods, the official explanation was suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#.22I_will_probably_be_found_dead_in_the_woods.22

[timeforpeace]

16. It's dead Jim.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. I'm sure it will get up in a minute

[struggle4progress]

34. The Daily Mail’s Latest Lie

CHARLES JOHNSON

The Daily Mail’s story by David Rose, claiming that climate scientist Phil Jones “admitted” there has been no global warming since 1995, is completely false ... The Daily Mail is known as the “Daily Fail” for a reason, and this is the reason. They lie about and distort stories on climate change frequently. This is just the latest example.

http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/02/14/the-daily-maillatest-lie/

[struggle4progress]

35. Daily Mail caught in another lie

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: February 14, 2010 3:11 AM, by Tim Lambert

Following the heels of the Rosegate scandal where journalist David Rose was exposed as a serial quote fabricator, the credibility of Rose's newspaper, the Daily Mail, has taken another body blow with the paper publishing a false story claiming that Phil Jones had admitted that there had been no global warming since 1995.

This is false (see graph below) and Jones made no such admission. Michael Tobis has the details on the Daily Mail's dishonesty ...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

[guardian]

41. Doomer tactic #3: attack the messenger

So are muriel_volestrangle and HeresyLives and OKIsItJustMe spreading lies when they posted:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just


Sounds to me like Jones said there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming since 1995. Sounds like your link is full of shit. Tell me, which flavor of Kool-Aid do they serve at communion: Slammin' Strawberry Kiwi or Sunshine Punch?

[struggle4progress]

44. Hmmph. I did post a link to the BBC interview (vide infra). The snippet you excise continues:

I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

[guardian]

45. I think you're more of a Slammin' Strawberry Kiwi person than Sunshine Punch

Just can't bring yourself to admit what Jones said about the last 15 years--can you? Some sort of psychopathic behavior problem maybe? Maybe you should see a professional?

As far as the rest of the quote. It sounds like Jones believes that in the short run we are still not going to see any statistically significant increase. It sounds like Jones believes in the long run increases are "more likely." Though I have little faith in any of these climate models. When the fuck have they ever been right? The only thing they can do is 'predict' doom 30-100 years out and ask for more grant money to study the problem.

[struggle4progress]

46. Seems to me Jones is saying more data permits better statistical analysis, not a very controversial

view

[neverforget]

48. So is your problem the grant money or the doom they predict? If astronomers

discovered an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in 5 years, would you say they're doomers too just looking for grant money? Would you question the science? Are you willing to risk humanities future on such thinking?

[HeavyHemi]

49. Another one.

Since you've intentionally distorted both an article and what others have posted multiple times, I think you've quiet aptly demonstrated you're a a liar. In other words, Palinesque.

[guardian]

60. At least they are in good company

The Jayson Blair Project
How did he bamboozle the New York Times?
By Jack Shafer


Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print.

The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.



full story at http://www.slate.com/id/2082741/

[struggle4progress]

36. Q&A: Professor Phil Jones (BBC | 13 Feb 10)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[On the Road]

37. Are You Using This to Imply That

Jones is saying there is no statistically significant global warming?

You do realize he is claiming there is significant global warming over the whole time period under study. Just not for the segment he was carefully asked about.

It is also true that when you perform an experiment, you are supposed to propose a significance test in advance (usually 95%, but could be 90%, 99%, or 99.9%) and then only claim that your hypothesis has been confirmed if those significance levels are met. (In this case, many observations and studies are being grouped, which makes the appropriate hurdle a little muddier.) However, when I used to read research, I never saw anyone imply that a 90-95% significance level constituted proof against a hypothesis. That would be silly.

Also, when you present Jones's statement that the results were not significant, were you also implying that the trend was negligible? That does not follow. When dealing with a short-period trend with high variability, you can have quite a robust effect that's doesn't quite get to the 95% level.

Now, to answer your question above:

So is it STILL a big lie to say there has been no warming since 1998?

To construe Jones's words in that way -- yes, it is still a lie. Maybe not by you, but by someone who knows better.

---------------

As far as the way those questions were framed:

One of the reasons the period 1998-2009 was undoubtedly selected because it includes the cool periods of two sunspot cycles, the current one not having completed on time. Of course that segment is not typical and does not follow the long-term trend.

When sunspots failed to return on schedule recently, it had a definite negative effect on global warming. Was that something that global warming deniers predicted in their hypothesis and confirms an alternate theory? No, it caught everyone by surprise and no one knows why it is happening.

During a similar period of the last sunspot cycle in the late 90s, global warming deniers were all crowing how temperatures had dropped. Then the sunspots started and temperatures jumped, resuming the previous trend. In all likelihood, that is what will happen this time.

I'll grant you one thing: if sunspots don't return, that probably will spell the end of global warming. But that is not a nice prospect to contemplate.

[bhikkhu]

47. I wouldn't bet my kids on Dr. Jones being right

...against the consensus of thousands of other scientists, it does sound like Dr. Jones is on somebody's payroll. Magical thinking is fine, as long as you have no real responsibilities.

[On the Road]

52. No, It Doesn't Sound Like That at All

He's a straight-up scientist giving precise an unbiased answers to specific questions.

It's the questions that are specifically designed to result in answers like these that will sow dissent and cast doubt into people's minds.

[markva]

53. hoax exposed

Guardian- these fine people are completely aware that they have been scammed by Al Gore et al. Its never easy to admit to being used and they can't be expected to own up to it anytime soon. In the meantime we can expect them to continue the usual insults, lies and such until such a time when they are forced to see the truth. I'm guessing you are going to see a whole bunch of new screen names as they are not going to want to be tied to their comments on this issue. The house of cards is collapsing fast..... its gonna be fun to watch.

[beardown]

55. Don't rely so much on cut and paste.

Sure you're in a hurry, but just cutting out a bit on George Bush the stupids' followers and pasting in Gore's name doesn't really seem to make us believe that your heart is really in the deniers' fight strongly enough.

Scammed is what the editor's writing the headline for the article did to these fine deniers are completely aware that they have been scammed by the editors and oil industry hacks, et al. Its never easy to admit to being used and they can't be expected to own up to it anytime soon. Oops, got carried away with my own cut and paste.

If you don't understand the discussion about the various significance levels being discussed and what the prof Jones was talking about then you shouldn't go out and announce to an entire discussion board that you don't understand, but then use the same post to throw your vaporous expertise behind the denier's position. There are legitimate issues to debate about the science behind global warming and the actual extent of man's impact, but adding yet another ignorance based denier post makes it hard to take your ilk seriously, although you have mastered the cut and paste function well enough.

[markva]

68. clever response

I am quite impressed with your response. Wow, That is really something! Don't worry too much, it will be easier to accept in the near future. I'm sure you can find a friend or two to commiserate with as you realize that you have been totally had.

[wtmusic]

56. No climate change after all, is there! hahaaa....

Al Gore was all ready to cash in big time...hahaaa...all he had to do was win an Academy Award, a Nobel Prize, a Grammy, and fly around the world presenting his so-called "climate change" slide show over 1,000 times, the one about so-called "global warming"...then start raking it in!!!

Sorry Al, but we aren't suckers!!! No easy money for Al...hahaaaaa!1

[DeadEyeDyck]

54. For now, I truly think that we should let AGW fall

by the wayside. SNL, the late night comics and the pundits are going to be all over this. The best we can do is be quiet and let the issue evaporate before November.

[bhikkhu]

59. Reality is what persists whether it is believed in or not

and when you have real responsibilities, its best to maintain a clear eye for reality, disregarding pundits, comics, internet asshattery, etc.

If no one depends on you, if you have no particular plans or cares, if life's easy and it really doesn't matter what you do or say, then a life directed by tv opinion polls may be a choice as good as any other.

[DeadEyeDyck]

63. I am not saying we surrender the belief

I am saying we let go of the failed strategy. You need to know when to walk away from a fight and when to re-engage. Now is the time to walk.

[bhikkhu]

67. I'd agree, its useless to argue with people who don't care

I stopped that awhile back myself (or tried, at least).

[tinrobot]

64. Ignoring it won't make it go away, ignorance will increase Exxon's profits.

Is that who you work for?

[Nihil]

66. The only things to "let fall" around here ...

... are the dumbass deniers and their "tactical" supporters.

> The best we can do is be quiet ...

Fine. Be quiet - please.

> ... and let the issue evaporate before November.

Classic!

Fuck the world, the seas, the creatures over land, sea or air,
the future of generations yet unborn, the water & food needed
by this generation ... fuck the lot of it as it is less important
than the two-yearly fart-fest of corrupt politicians in the
greediest & most polluting country of all.

:grr:

[kestrel91316]

57. Enjoy your stay.

[The Onyx Key]

61. Did you post this in LBN? n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

62. for now, Global warming is dead..

put a fork in it.

[Nihil]

65. Nah ... I think we'll just put a fork in you instead ...

:eyes: