You can read a fantastic article about this douche-bag at the dailymail.co.uk.
Apparently this data has been "lost" or "misplaced" or "not organized". Apparently, the professor's record keeping is "not as good as it should be" and he has trouble "keeping track" of the data. The guy who's job it is to keep all of the data that supports the graph through which fuels most of the climate change activists around the world isn't even organized enough to confidently provide this data to the world to be independently scrutinized and investigated.
But don't you worry little climate change ikeman's, Jones has "denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made." I guess his word will be good enough.
Of course Jones goes on to admit to the following eye-opening revelations:
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 whereas more recent warming could not.I think this provides more support to my theory about what is going on with our climate: we really just have no clue what is happening. Hypothesis are made to fit agendas; poor evidence is used to fit these hypothesis; false claims about the climate are being made all over the place; key evidence can't be provided to the public; other swings in temperature can be somehow linked 100% to other natural phenomenon, but this particular recent swing has be 100% the cause of CO2; noone can say the medieval warming period didn't exist, but they do anyway without, once again, credible evidence.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he 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.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
I found this the other day. Its a guide for man-made climate change skeptics.
16 comments:
This, of course, is reality only in the denialist universe. In the real world, the hockey stick has been reconstructed by more than one academy/team:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png#Reconstructions
The thing is, the people who are attacking universities are the same people who are anti-science.
Josh, because you didn't actually read the BBC interview with Phil Jones, you have made false claims. Please read the inteview here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Phil Jones does definitely not say that warming stopped in the last few years. Instead, he says such a short period is stastistically insignificant.
Always go to the sources, or be painted a fool along with the fools you read.
The only real douche is that person who listens to the pundits without thinking:
"There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good."
Phil Jones
Knowlingly listening to those who you know are lying is almost as bad as lying yourself:
"Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.
Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).
"
I'm sorry, am I quoting directly from the interview? You see, just as bad as Palin. You take your talking points from propagandists and think you have the truth. HORRIBLE.
"H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D."
"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
"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."
"Raw Data Availability
Briffa has also been attacked by McIntyre for not releasing the original ring-width measurement records from which the various chronologies discussed in Briffa (2000) and Briffa et al. (2008) were made. We would like to reiterate that these data were never "owned" by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals. When the Briffa (2000) paper was published, release of these data was specifically embargoed by our colleagues who were still working towards further publications using them. Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data. This was done in 2008 and 2009. Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004. "
Surprise, surprise.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
"Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.
The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail. "
"S - The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing. "
How about actually reading the interview before you read an editorial on it, eh?
"U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged - partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?
Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.
"
But they don't, Phil, because they are Palin boneheads.
"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
And you cannot assume they are different. The burden of proof is on the science, and there's not enough evidence to support the theory that temperatures today are unprecedented. One half of the graph is created with certain types of data and the other half of the graph is created with different types of data. Its a false comparison.
"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."
If tree ring data isn't reliable for the past 50 years, why is it reliable for years prior?
"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."
Its out of his expertise, but he'll hypothesize anyway and all of the climate change eichmanns will shake their collective heads up and down in agreement forming an "undeniable" consensus.
Sorry. Nothing in this interview convinces me that this guy isn't a fraud and that the "science" is complete.
"And you cannot assume they are different. The burden of proof is on the science, and there's not enough evidence to support the theory that temperatures today are unprecedented. One half of the graph is created with certain types of data and the other half of the graph is created with different types of data. Its a false comparison."
You can if the overall trend is going up, which it definitely is. Mann's hockey stick AND the instrumental data prove this.
"If tree ring data isn't reliable for the past 50 years, why is it reliable for years prior?"
And this is where you lie, lie, lie. The tree rings matter not. The ice cores, boreholes, and corals are other data sources that all produce roughly the same graph as the tree rings. Mann's graph does not die with the tree rings.
"Its out of his expertise, but he'll hypothesize anyway and all of the climate change eichmanns will shake their collective heads up and down in agreement forming an "undeniable" consensus."
Nope. He is communicating information from other experts of climatology, Josh. Jones' expertise is really, really narrow. Just think of Suzanne and you will understand what that narrowness means.
"Sorry. Nothing in this interview convinces me that this guy isn't a fraud and that the "science" is complete."
Science is never complete..
You can believe he is a fraud all you want. The fact is, he doesn't matter. He is not climate science. He is not global warming.
"The fact is, he doesn't matter. He is not climate science. He is not global warming."
Unfortunately any of the leaders involved with the IPCC and climate change seem to be frauds. Gore, R.K. Pachauri, and now Phil Jones...who will be next?
"You can if the overall trend is going up"
A trend which is only discovered by mixing and matching data...hmmm
"The tree rings matter not. The ice cores, boreholes, and corals are other data sources that all produce roughly the same graph as the tree rings. Mann's graph does not die with the tree rings."
It does if he uses them consistently. I still don't understand...why again are they used at all if they aren't reliable?
"Nope. He is communicating information from other experts of climatology, Josh. Jones' expertise is really, really narrow. Just think of Suzanne and you will understand what that narrowness means."
And Suzanne wouldn't communicate in regard to science which is outside of her speciality where all the little eichmann's can shake their collective heads in agreement.
"Science is never complete.. "
Agreed, which is the primary reason why there should not be an international agency governing CO2 emissions.
They were used in the original construction and then found to have problems.
"Agreed, which is the primary reason why there should not be an international agency governing CO2 emissions."
That is an illogical conclusion.
"And Suzanne wouldn't communicate in regard to science which is outside of her speciality where all the little eichmann's can shake their collective heads in agreement."
Unless it had something do with her work.
"It does if he uses them consistently. I still don't understand...why again are they used at all if they aren't reliable?"
Because in science there are attempts. Failed attempts are discarded, while successful attempts are kept. The tree rings represent a failed attempt among four other attempts, all of which turned out to be successful attempts. And I know the next point is going to come as a radical shock to you, but: failed attempts DO NOT EQUAL fraud in science.
Post a Comment