Phil Jones No Global Warming Since 1995

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buffalo Roam, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Yes, the CRU guru Phil Jones has admitted that there is no statstical warming since 1995, and that the Medieval warming was actually higher, and that Global Warming may not be a man-made.

    Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena.......

    He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming,.........

    Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

    But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

    He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
    He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

    Read more:
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    That is a completely unfounded accusation. I read it on Drudge, and found their report to come to unsupported conclusions. What seems to have happened is that the paper form of the original data cannot be located. That doesn't mean that the warming didn't happen.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. otheadp Banned Banned

    After being a long-time skeptic, I now think that there is some warming all across the globe. Whether it's man made is a whole other question.

    It's not that relevant whether the world is warming or not. What's important is to make sure that big business is not polluting our atmosphere and water and land. Not because oh gosh we're all gonna die 'cause the earth will explode, but because I want clean air, and clean water, and food that doesn't contain leaking battery acid because it absorbed it from the ground that ended up containing it because of all the pollution.

    I also think that "cap and trade" is immoral. The rich countries will basically pay poor countries to not pollute, as they continue to pollute themselves. This is not fair also because the poor countries will have a harder time becoming industrialized as a result.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Holy fuck, I don't know where to start!

    What is CR who is this dude and why should we care?

    The last part is the best. First you said there was no warming but just in case you throw in "GW might not be man-made" shit. Well, if there is no warming, it is irrelevant what DIDN"T cause it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    People need to be smarter than the average newspaper

    I can't believe we at Sciforums are still going around the man-made/natural circle.

    A certain amount of global warming is inevitable as a natural cycle of the planet. However, the difference between whether things will be difficult or extremely difficult very much appears to be in our hands. One of the problems I have with the anti-warming argument is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge this aspect of the proposition.
  9. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    You might like to mention that Phil Jones has currently been put on suspension (actually make that removed completely) after the breach of climate data and the University of East Anglia. This therefore makes any current pressed stories on the subject difficult to actually take as gospel since there is a potential for misinformation to be spread.

    Incidentally Phil doesnt' take into consideration when the Catalytic Converter was implimented into mainstream cars, or the creation of lead free fuels. Both of those two things would factor on a depreciation of a climatic change, if anything it would prove that both these measures and others have had an effect.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    That the weather "experts", can misplace, reams of data that makes corroboration of stats problematic, regarding such an important global issue, brings the fundamental integrity around conclusions into question.

    The clear reticence of sharing data, as exposed in the e-mails is another indicator as to integrity.

    Thankfully this has all resulted in endeavors to improve standards around the science before willy nilly stunting of third world economic growth. :m:
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Well said. My position has long been that, regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by man, the proposed solutions (Cap and Trade, Kyoto) are simply too expensive to implement. Consider the fact that the oceans rose a few feet in the last century, would anyone here rank that as the biggest problem we faced in the twentieth century? Did anyone even notice? Yet we are asked to stunt economic growth worldwide to prevent the same thing from happening this century?

    Now we have a rush of reports of bias, cherry picking of data, lost data, and a slanted peer review process. Global warming as a political movement is dead, or at least on life support.
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    There is still alot of data lacking, it's all very well taking data from the Met Office or from climatic research like core samples or looking at rings on old trees however it lacks data on emissions.

    Emission data afterall is one part of the mathematics, with it it's possible to verify the climatic data as being accurate or missing data. Emissions are a problem because although there is the EPA to do tests, they are limited in number and resources and their actual emissions tests can be spaced six months apart as opposed to constant streams of accurate data.

    (It's the difference between an EPA inspector going to a landfill tip and takin an emission output during a low flaring phaze and that of one designed to lessen a landfills emissions prior to their arrival etc)
  13. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    spidergoat, this isn't from Drudge, it is from the Daily Mail, London, Europe, and that isn't the only news organs in Europe that are reporting it.

    They have been caught read handed, and it is not just little mistakes, these are systemic, and deep rooted, and at all levels.

    Tampered data, lost/nonexistent data (the dog ate it), precisely cherry picked data, and in the IPPCC the use of student papers based on flawed data from the CRU, and Phil Jone's, not original research, the CRU data is deeply embedded at all levels of the Global Warming orthodoxy.
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I thought you would have learned your lesson about intellectual honesty by now, Buffalo Roam, you've been banned for dishonesty often enough.

    Do you understand why this may be irrelevant?

    Now, this is where the accusation of dishonesty comes in, because what the article actually says is this:
    So you've cherry picked the article halfway through a sentence, and presented it out of context to imply that it means something entirely different.

    Here you do the exact same thing again, what the article actually says is this:

    Again, you cut the paragraph off, halfway through a sentence, presenting it out of context as if it implies something entirely different.

    Which is why the comment made earlier may be irrelevant.

    And yet, in spite of this, the raw data (or some of it at least) is freely available online. I know this, because I've accessed some of it for myself.
  15. Pasta Registered Senior Member

    Obama is elminating NASA's moon program, and instead boosting NASA funds for additional AGW research. Some politicians are acting as if nothing happened and AGW is still a "fact"....
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Now if you care to read again, I was quoting Phil Jones and from the latest story of the Global Warming Hoax from the European Press, which for some reason isn't being well covered in the States.

    Where have you been hiding? the CRU? (Climate Research Unit)...East Anglia University?...Phil Jones?

    The Email scandal that showed in their own communications that they were tweaking the data, ignoring data, fixing the numbers to agree with the pregone conclusion that there was Global Warming, and that it was Man Caused......

    Phil Jone's the Head of the CRU, on whose work, most of the IPPCC rational that put the blame on Man for causing Global Warming, that Jones now admits stopped in 1995.......

    Now, just where have you been hiding?

    Yes, I put Jone's weaseling excuse in my opening......and if you had taken the time to read the article, you would have seen that Jones also admits that Global Warming has taken place before......

    , although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    Read more:
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I did, in full, and I'm fully aware that warming has taken place before.

    However, what precisely do you think that proves?

    I suppose you also think that the science of man made fire is religous orthodoxy?
  18. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member


    Trippy....yes, "dishonesty?".... really, now how about the dishonesty of the CRU, and just how much of that raw data is really accurate, and hasn't been corrupted by collection bias? intentional and unintentional?

    Jesus, we have them in their own words admitting that they missuses the peer review process, and that they massaged the numbers to get the results they needed to support their fore gone conclusion, and in this latest round from Dr. Jones we now have the admission that there is no statistical evidence of warming since 1995.

    Now Trippy I used to have a great deal of respect for you, but that has disappeared.

    When we first crossed paths I told you that I wasn't a scientist, but that I read, and researched, and tried to figure out what was being said about Global Warming.

    I have in my reply, at time forgotten to post the URL's to my information and sources, a mistake of the pressure to reply to, aggressive and combative post, and have been hammered and paid the price for (quote) "Plagiarism".

    Now Laddie, no Plagiarism was ever intended, but my information is and was pertinent and correct as I used it in my post.

    Now if you remember from the first time You got snotty with Me, because You got your nose out of joint, because I questioned the Great and all knowing Trippy's expounding's, I offered you the chance to Bring Your Broadsword and Have at it Laddie, the Offer Still Stand, so hike up your kilty and have at it.

    But the Fact Still Stands.....Phil Jones has admitted in open interview that there is no statistical warming since 1995.....and that the;

    What recent warming, Phil Jones?, Jones' out of His own Sewer Hole, admits that Global Warming is not statistically provable from 1995.

    Man cannot generate enough energy to affect global warming if we wanted to, let alone by accident through living out our lives on this planet.

    CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life, and a necessary and vital ingredient to the survival of every thing on this planet.

    When we can control the Cycles of the Sun, the Milankovitch Cycles, or even the weather on this Planet, we might just then have the ability to effect Warming and Cooling on Mother Earth.

    So pound sand, Laddie, Anthroprogenic Global Warming isn't proven science, consensus is a myth, and Global Warming is cyclical in nature and cause.

    Earth has gone through these cycles since it was formed, on greater scales and less scales, through out it's History, and will continue to do so no matter what we think we can do about it for the foreseeable future.
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    And did Man have anything to do with the cause, even now do we have the ability to adjust the temperatures on this planet intentionally?

    We can't even come close to generating the amounts of energy that would be required to do so if we wanted to, so tell me how we can do so unintentionally?

    What I have said all along, it isn't proven science, and from the leaks and admissions, that it isn't even close to being proven.

    Yes, Trippy, who is being ridiculous? Man has the ability to generate the necessary energy to create fire, just rub tow sticks together long enough and you get fire, now do we have the ability to generate the energy to rub two suns together to create global warming? or put one out to create global cooling?
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The fact that some small factor contributed to a historical warming period proves that changing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can indeed cause dramatic shifts in climate.

    Too much of anything can be bad. Drinking too much water can kill you. Too much Co[sup]2[/sup] can indeed act as a pollutant. In fact, right now it is making the oceans more acidic and affecting the shells of shellfish.
  21. noodler Banned Banned

    Buffalo Roam: how do you explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, if "we can't come close to generating the amounts of energy..." how did it all get into the atmosphere?

    Proven science
    is a nonexistent fallacy that people who are ignorant of what science is, often chant to themselves as a reassuring way to fend of accusations of said ignorance.
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    We didn't generate it, we FOUND the energy accumulated just under the Earth's surface.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    To the best of my knowledge, the data that I have looked at has been accurate.
    The contentions that I have seen have never been that the data as it was collected was ever inaccurate, only that the ways it had been processed afterwards were questionable. Processed afterwards by the CRU, not the Russian Met Office (to give one example).

    You understand what raw data means don't you?
    I'm not referring to the raw data as presented by the CRU, I'm talking about the raw data from its original sources.

    What makes you think that I ever had anything to do with the charges of plagiarism?

    Funny thing is, I seem to recall that JamesR and I accepted your challenge, and gave you our terms, but you refused to accept them, so...

    By the way, I find the term 'Laddie' patronizing, and would appreciate if you would stop referring to me as such. I understand, that strictly speaking it's not neccessarily a patronizising term, however, you are simply not in the group of people that I'm willing to accept it as any form of affectation from.

    I didn't question that did I?
    I questioned your misrepresentation of the statement (by presenting it out of context), and I questioned your interpretation of its meaning.

    And here you seem not to understand the meaning of statistical significance.
    "No statistically significant positive trend" does not imply that there is "No positive trend" the two statements are very different, and have profoundly different implications.

    Below are three charts.
    I generated all three charts using Excell
    I generated 100 points of data, and plotted the last 15.
    Two of them are based on data that shows/was generated with "no significant warming Trend"
    The third was generated with data that shows "no warming trend"

    I know there is a warming trend in two of them, because I built it into the equation I used to generate the data set - a warming trend of 0.6°C with a random noise of ±2°C.

    The third data set has no warming trend, but has the same random noise of ±2°C.

    Would you care to guess which is which?

    Should I create a seperate thread, and open a poll to see how many people think which is which?

    I present to you, in no particular order:

    Set 1:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Set 2:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Set 3:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes Buffalo Roam, you through your broadsword down, and laid a challenge, I set the terms I was willing to accept the challenge under, and you, not I, backed out of the debate.

Share This Page