Daily Mail: The Jones U-turn

This headline in the Sunday Daily Mail is quite something:

click for the Daily Mail article

People often note strange ad placement from the Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.

WUWT readers may recall another prominent climate scientist who mentions “no statistically significant warming since 1995″. See this previous WUWT story:

A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming

It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

192 Responses to Daily Mail: The Jones U-turn

  1. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    are you kidding me!?!?!?!!!!!

    what will the trolls do now??

  2. Bill Marsh says:

    I thought there was no MWP? Now the debate is if the MWP was as warm as today or not?

  3. John A says:

    Does anyone remember what the reaction was to Richard Lindzen claiming “no significant rise in temperature since 1995″? I’m willing to bet that Jones won’t get the same reaction…

  4. Patrik says:

    The truth shall out.
    All we need now are the true temps for 1900-1978.

  5. Richard says:

    Phil Jones – If you tell the truth and truly repent of your sins – I forgive you.

    The rest of you bloody hypocrites please follow suit.

  6. Glenn Haldane says:

    Yesterday (13 Feb), the BBC published a question and answer session between Harrabin and Jones at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm . To me, the most interesting exchange was this:

    Q – 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?

    A – The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing . . .

    I find this amazing. Jones appears to be saying that the only reason for accepting the idea of AGW is that he can’t think of anything else. Apart, presumably, from the basic physics of CO2, he suggests no theoretical mechanism, no observed processes, no testable hypothesis at all.

    No prosecuting counsel would dare to appear in court with a case founded on such an inadequate idea – essentially, ‘the accused person must have done it because we haven’t been able to find anyone else who might have’.

    Is this really a fair summary of the AGW case?

  7. Kaboom says:

    Beautiful!

    Climategate is simply the gift that keeps on giving. 2010 is the year we finally get to stick a fork into the AGW scam.

    Congratulations Anthony, and all the other voices of reason. It was a long and closely-fought battle, but victory is sweet….

  8. Michael says:

    It’s a wonder what contemplating suicide will do to bring one to their senses.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Maybe the December gardening time has brought home the truth Chez Jones.
    :-)

  10. nev says:

    I think you’ll find the Google adsense was triggered by “stick” and “warmer”, and ironically warmists will be wanting to take a stick to poor old Phil for making that concession…

  11. UK Sceptic says:

    Looks like the crumbling AGW dam is about to burst.

  12. Ken Harvey says:

    Jones seems to have come to the conclusion that his only alternative to admitting fraud is to adopt the defence of the absent minded professor. “I could prove that to you, I think, if I could just find my notes. If only the dog hadn’t eaten the data. The code? Well you would have to ask Harry about that. I’m a scientist, not a computer mechanic.”

    Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

  13. R.S.Brown says:

    As you read through the DailyMail Online you’ll see
    there’s the bullet points, and then there’s some following “take back” to
    keep the disappointed Real Climateers and Warmistas from screaming
    threats at Mr. Jones as some activists did to Mr. Hansen in January.

    It appears the good Dr. Jones would rather been seen boardng the bus
    rather than wait to be tossed under the proverbial wheels of justice and
    the opinion of history.

    No matter how the story is softened, lot’s of folks are left holding the
    one-cat-lighter bag.

  14. Heraldo Ortega says:

    Has Government lost control of The Masses ?.

  15. David Q. says:

    Anthony, if there was an olympic event for finding flaws in scientific reasoning, you would be a contender.

  16. Charles. U. Farley says:

    Meltdown of global warming! Read all about it!

  17. Adam Gallon says:

    Any bets that over at “The other field post office” (RC, Tammy-boy, etc, etc), any mention of this heresy will be firmy censored?
    Especially after their great statistician, Tamino himself, posted that it wold need 11 years to be statistically significant.

  18. David M says:

    Is it April 1st in England?

    Could this be the end of the global warming scam? Will we see some people go to jail? Will Al Gore return his con money?

    David M

  19. Expat in France says:

    What can one say? One desperately hopes that a few others ‘fess up to their respective parts in this corporate stupidity, too. But I won’t hold my breath. BBC, are you there? A little back-pedaling, if you please. I thank you…

  20. Ralph says:

    >>People often note strange ad placement from the
    >>Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.

    Romantic dates powered by KY eh? Well that should lubricate the romantic evening a little !!!

    On a more serious note, I have tried to add my comments to the Mail page, but with no luck after 3 hours. They must have a lot of comments to moderate.

    .

  21. Caleb says:

    Yowza!

    I wonder if he’ll get called a flat-earther, the way I got called a flat-earther for saying, four years ago, exactly what he is saying now.

  22. Richard says:

    Truly this is a defining moment in history. Hats off to you and all the other dogged sceptic bloggers to take on the might of the UN, Western Governments, and the so-called scientific orthodoxy, to bring down this hoax.

  23. TerrySkinner says:

    I should really like to see the e-mail back and forth amongst the CRU/NASA crowd that this piece has no doubt provoked.

  24. michel says:

    Yes. Now that Jones has pronounced that the four periods of modern warming are statistically indistinguishable, we have a real problem. We cannot give the explanation of rising CO2 for the first three, so there’s no reason to invoke it for the last. But it gets worse. Each such previous episode was followed by cooling, and we cannot explain that either.

    We know that its not warming, we know that extreme weather events are not getting any more common, we know that droughts are not increasing, we know the ice is not melting, ocean heat content is not rising, sea levels are not rising any faster than they have for 100s of years, glaciers are not shrinking at any rate which was unusual in the last warming episodes.

    Then, if we look further back, and again from the Jones interview, it gets worse still. We now have a re-admitted Medieval Warm Period to contend with, on which it turns out that the science is not after all settled. And what is yet worse still, a cooling after it which the models have no way of explaining. And then there is an RWP…

    If you look at the history of the last 2,000 years, you have to choose between two explanations of periodic warmings. During these warmings we get rising temperatures, some Arctic melt, some glacier retreat, increased crop yields, longer hotter summers.

    One explanation would be that climate fluctuates about a rough mean, for reasons that we do not understand. But it is either random or caused by something we have not yet discovered. The second would be that the current warming episode is caused by the combination of CO2, and also of positive feedbacks which did not manifest themselves earlier in response to the earlier warmings.

    The second explanation could be true. It could be true that this time its different. But it needs a bit more than wild rants about denialism to convince anyone, in view of these concessions.

    If you are trying to think of an analogy, think medically. If we had a well documented historical account of outbreaks of some disease a couple or three times a century, we did not know why, and someone gives an explanation in terms of a factor which we know for sure was only present during the last and most recent one. What would it take to show he is right? An awful lot. He really would have to show that ‘this time its different’. Pretty tough.

  25. Caleb says:

    Go to jail.
    Go directly to jail.
    Do not pass go.
    Do not collect 200 million in grant money.

  26. kwik says:

    Look at the automated Google ad up there!

    http://www.The-Green-Guide.info/

    hohoho!

  27. JC says:

    Another article –

    “Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud”
    By Marc Sheppard

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

  28. Mike Hughes says:

    So there we have it!! Based upon lies, shambolic record keeping, breaking the law over FOI requests we have taxation and environmental proposals that threaten the economies of all industrialsed nations.

    Someone needs to go to gaol and I wany my green taxes back.

  29. Michael R says:

    “Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

    That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.”

    I am sorry, did he just impy that 10′s of thousands of pieces of data went into the “hockey stick”……..

  30. I’m delighted with the questions underlying this article, that BBC Roger Harrabin framed; delighted with Jones’ responses; still clear that the BBC, and even more Phil Jones, have got to drill deeper before all the gangrene is cleared in this operation.

    To keep up the pressure at a tolerable level, I’d like to see here:
    (a) a re-examination of the Soon and Baliunas paper that got trashed by concerted Team effort
    (b) another look at Miskolczi. This recent article is excellent and readable for folk like me who still get a bit lost in the radiative physics. A great improvement on earlier material. It’s now endorsed by SPPI – Monckton is a brilliant mathematician, and has, at a guess, fully grasped Miskolczi’s maths. This is the classic proof that CO2 increase cannot warm the atmosphere, because the Earth already maintains constancy of GHG effect (done by lowering water vapour). The disproof theory is closely backed by the evidence. And NASA’s reaction described here clinches it to me.

    btw, Anthony and mods, can the Tips thread be automatically archived so that only the last week shows? I cannot use this thread – always too long to bring up.

  31. Robert says:

    Wow!! if this bombshell does not blow the AGW-train of the tracks than what will?

  32. Fredrick Lightfoot says:

    And for whom does the bell toll ?

  33. Mike U.K. says:

    Do you really think this will be the end of the saga; or are we too far down the carbon trading path to halt the train?

  34. Kaye Coates says:

    OK. I am not a warmist, have not exactly been a skeptic, but have been following with interest the developing climate change debate. But this takes the biscuit!! We have been asked to change the way the whole world runs based on claims by someone that I would have sacked if they had been a technician in my lab, and had handled data so poorly. So now what?? Clearly there is no real consensus, so will governments do a u-turn and scrap all the ET schemes? and when? in Australia we still are not getting a lot of mainstream reporting from both sides of the climate change debate. To a large proportion of the population, carbon is still a problem, and those that think differently need to get with the program. So lots of money still being spent and committed to fixing a problem that may or may not be an issue.

  35. Daniel H says:

    It seems appropriate that your screen capture features a prominent photo of Professor Jones next to an advertisement for KY Sex Lube. It just goes to show that no matter how slippery his data gets, in the end we’re still getting f***ed.

  36. Roger Sowell says:

    Jones and others can’t explain it, because it didn’t happen. It was a statistical fluke, caused by a series of cold winters in the late 1970′s to early 1980′s. I call this the Abilene Effect, based on the small Texas town of Abilene, with data from CRU going back to 1886.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html

  37. Jack says:

    But, the debate was over! The science was settled! The deniers were flat earthers, or paid shills, or dupes. And we mustn’t let them publish, even if “we have to change the definition of peer review”.

    Well, all I can say to those at the CRU and the rest, is that you’ve made the history books, boys! Biggest scientific fraud in history!

    You’d think the MSM would be interested in covering that.

  38. Benjamin says:

    Why doesn’t Jones question himself with that the warming seems to follow a ~30 year cycle ?
    1850-1880 Warming
    1880-1910
    1910-1940 Warming
    1940-1970
    1970-2000 Warming

    ….

  39. The ghost of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Despite what I feel about the distortion of science by people like Jones, I do wish him well (I mean his mental state). Being under enormous pressure like this (even if self-inflicted) must be horrific). If I were him, I would come clean like he has to the Daily Mail and lay all the cards on the table. Only then can he hope to move on with his life. He should retire and start gardening. This ‘no warming since 95′ could be quite explosive being as it’s he who has admitted it. It will interesting to see what that fool Moonbat makes of it. I would also like to hear Vicky Pope’s explanations too.

  40. John Hooper says:

    What about 1994: has there been any warming since then?

  41. Purakanui says:

    Gosh, Phil looks so athletic doing all of those backward flips. Cheers.
    I hope someone eventually leaks the current Mann-Jones correspondence.

  42. Stacey says:

    Professor Jones goes from being a public servant to D list minor celebrity in one leap.
    What next celebrity Big Brother, I suppose that could be appropriate. Maybe Get Me Out of Here I’m a Celebrity.
    Of course, none of Jones’s current shenanigan’s are planned to distract attention or pervert the independant investigation by his mates on the Team and friends of the now discredited CRU at the University of East Anglia.
    It is cheering news to know that tax payers money has been used to fund someone whom even his colleagues think is disorganised.
    Well,you know the calcuations I made for that bridge that collapsed?
    Mmmmm well?
    I lost them?
    I think that’s negligence and incompetence in one hit.
    Harsh but fair.
    Get me out of here I can’t make it up anymore?
    Your fired!

  43. SandyInDerby says:

    Not only that but Anthony made it into today’s (UK) Sunday Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

  44. brian says:

    @Glenn Haldane exactly what I thought when I read that, it’s the same argument you hear for belief in God or miracles. It could be the words of some religious extremist – ‘we have no scientific explanation so it must be an act of God’. Amazing.

  45. Claude Harvey says:

    We’re reading the words of a fellow who realizes “the jig is up”. That leads us to one of two conclusions: 1) Before the fall, he was a conscious fraudster or 2) He had become so caught up in the “tribalism” of AGW versus the skeptics that the man became self-deluded.

    Reading the exposed E-mail files in conjunction with Jones’ recent candor moves me toward the “self-deluded” conclusion. Now that the self-imposed veil has been lifted, what Phil Jones must be realizing about himself is worse punishment than any court could impose on any serious scientist. We may be witnessing a human tragedy of epic proportions.

  46. Mike McMillan says:

    Dr Jones saying no warming?

    Next thing you know, Drs Mann and Briffa will be trashing tree rings.

    Don’t fall for this. It’s a trap. They’re just trying to confuse us.

  47. Graeme from Melbourne says:

    And the countdown begins… 3… 2… 1…

    “Throw him under a bus…!” They exclaim.

    Watch the alarmists now distance themselves from Mr Jones.

  48. Phillip Bratby says:

    Glenn Haldane:

    Yes that is a fair summary of the AGW case. It shows there is no science behind AGW.

  49. STEPHEN PARKER says:

    Dont feel sorry for jones. He obviously now has a proffesional advising him on how to deal with the media.Last week we had im the victim suicide piece, this week enough stuff to appease some critics. His pension, the universities image is whats on his mind. and mods, please dont snip this last line- its not about data- its about money

  50. Jimbo says:

    It’s all unravelling and the UK press and climate scientists are slowly getting one leg off the bandwaggon and getting ready to remove the other leg. More stories will emerge particularly if the MSM start doing some regular investigative journalism; it’s just a pity that it all had to be done by sceptic blogs for over a decade for the scam to be exposed for what it is – a political confidence trick. Remember the certainty and ‘evidence’ for the WMDs in Iraq?

  51. Steamboat McGoo says:

    Being kind to the justifiably beleaguered Prof (without forgiving him), I wonder if the recent “excitement” in Jones’ life has caused him to quite-seriously examine his present professional position in its entirety.

    Perhaps he is (if only subconsciously) now realizing just how ridiculously thin the ice is on AGW theory – and is trying to back away as far as he can while still retaining his dignity.

  52. DirkH says:

    “Michael (01:30:06) :

    It’s a wonder what contemplating suicide will do to bring one to their senses.”

    A need for deconstruction and re-ordering of facts?

  53. juandos says:

    The BBC has the following: Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

  54. inversesquare says:

    Yep yep yep……sigh

    Yes as much as he conceded pretty much everything that purports to be the crux of the IPCC’s ‘historical eveidence’ argument for climate change, in a national paper and on the BBC no less…

    Will this turn the ship around?…… I think no.

    The politics of this has way more sway than the science. If it didn’t, this would have been over with years ago.

    I don’t think this will be put to rest using the science, it’s pretty much a religion by now….. millions of people have literally trillions of $$ tied up in this mess.

    They still have models to keep the good ship AGW alive, it will be easy for them to discredit the historical stuff and point out that we will not see anything till a long way into the future (after all, that is their argument is it not?)

    I have read a little about ‘post normal science’…. it’s pretty easy to see how it can be hijacked by anyone with an agenda.

    The genius of this particular scam is that they’ve played the ‘usual suspects’ such as big oil and big business, in order to convince people that what would under normal scientific scrutiny be a none starter – an also ran, is somehow robust and a certainty.

    You could probably get Jones, Mann, Hansen, Schmidt and the IPCC to all spill their guts and still have enough wriggle room to keep this thing going.

    It’s urban Myth on a scale not seen since heretics were being jailed for trying to point out that the planets revolve around the sun…

  55. Philip C says:

    Is it a coincidence that last night at 19.00 BBC Radio 4 ran a fawning 15 minute profile of Pachauri only omitting his abilities to walk on water and then turn some of it into wine.
    Would send a link but still cannot get tips and notes to work.

  56. Brian Johnson uk says:

    Waiting with baited breath for the response from Jones’ friend HRH Charles, Prince of Wails.

    Any direct questions from the UK Press will be derailed in the usual manner.

    For sure Prof Jones will not be in line for any ‘gongs’ now, whatever transpires.

  57. Donald (Australia) says:

    Let the carbon traders, the carbon creditors, the carbon sequestrers, Gore’s GIM investors ( UK Anglican Church ? ), and the rest of the deluded fools start to become afraid, as in very afraid.

    But we all knew this – Tremberth’s whining in the email about it being a “travesty” that no warming was happening was late confirmation of what many were saying beforehand.

    So it is no sudden realisation on Jone’s part. He has been in it up to his neck for years.

  58. John Page says:

    Glenn, isn’t this the argumentum ad ignorantiam which Monckton continually criticises?

  59. Annabelle says:

    Have you seen this one? UK Sunday Times, quoting Christy, Anthony, McKitrick:

    “World may not be warming, say scientists”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

    Climate scepticism goes mainstream!

  60. Donald (Australia) says:

    Or Jones’ !

  61. Watching this slow motion train wreck is very satisfying and I’m just waiting for someone in BC to start a class action lawsuit against the BC government to return the carbon taxes that were extorted from the population with the enabling legislation based on fraudulent information.

    colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, sounds a lot like my home office where I usually have about 50 projects on the go which is why I now keep a copy of everything in multiple copies on multiple physically separated computers. If something gets lost then I can do a brute force search on all of the hard drives to find it — a lot faster than digging through tens of thousands of pieces of paper.

    Knowing that I’m chronically disorganized means that I hire office staff to deal with trivial details that don’t interest me and they make sure that everything is organized. If I was responsible for personally keeping my patients medical records organized, I would have lost my medical license years ago because I find the medicine interesting, not the minutae of making sure the right piece of paper goes in the appropriate chart and certain idiotic forms are done before arbitrary deadlines. My office staff budget is far less than Dr. Jones could have spent on hiring an efficient secretary or three.

    The BC College of Physicians ensures that all doctors record keeping is above a minimum standard but it is incredible that in the Jones case there was absolutely no oversight to ensure that the data utilized to produce conclusions which would have a very significant impact on the whole population of the planet was filed appropriately. I worked as a researcher before becoming a doctor and raw data was the most sacrosanct item in the lab as everything else was replaceable except for experimental data. Even I was able to be obsessive in keeping track of all details of experimental data despite an office that probably rivalled Jones’s in height of stacks of important papers.

    “I forgot what I did with the original data” just won’t fly and the seemingly unsinkable ship AGW is going down as fast as the Titanic.

  62. Jordan says:

    “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.”

    Or, to be more direct – he does’t know, but he’s willing to have a guess in favour of the AGW hypothesis.

    There is inadequate data in the paleoclimatic period. But Jones also fails to mention there is inadequate data in the instrumental record.

    To argue a difference between the MWP and the last 100 years, we’ll need convincing temperature records ito be able to make meaningful comparisons which give coverage to regions like Antarctica, the North Pole, the expanses of the Pacific Ocean and southern Atlantic, the expanses of great jungle regions, the peaks of the Himalayas, Rockies and Andes, desert regions and so forth.

    We have little or no record for these regions over the past 100 years because they are inconvenient or impractical to take continuous temperature measurements. Why would anybody spend a small fortune posting people in remote and inhospitable locations to take a series of temperature measurements?

    The historic ground based temperature measurements are concentrated in the places where it was convenient to measure, and the places where people just happened to settle, and where people were motivated to keep reasonably accurate records. That gets things off to a pretty poor start for those who wish to argue that the instrumental record is “global”.

    And even if we did do all of the above, the paleo record doesn’t have the coverage for a like-for-like comparison. So looking at differences between indasequate paleo and indaequate instrumental records is another example of apples-to-advocados.

  63. Viktor says:

    Boom goes the dynamite.

  64. MAGB says:

    I found this the most interesting :
    “Q – 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?

    A – This area is slightly outside my area of expertise…..”

    One criterion for the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship is the absence of other plausible explanations – here Jones is saying that he is not qualified to comment on the validity of alternative causes of a warming trend. So he can never be justified in stating categorically that CO2 is important and that action is required. He is merely a measurer of temperature – nothing more.

    In this context, Roy Spencer’s views deserve much more attention: see “Natural Climate Variability as an Explanation for What The Models Can Not Mimic” @
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evidence-for-natural-climate-cycles-in-the-ipcc-climate-models-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/

  65. Julian in Wales says:

    Can someone tell me: If one removes the hockey stick data what other compelling evidence is there out there of a direct correlation between C02 build up and warming? Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?

  66. Craigo says:

    So the dog didn’t eat his homework after all. It fell out of his bag long before all that to-ing and FOI-ing with S Mc. Which would be more embarrassing? Turning up with sloppy homework or “loosing” the data?

    Is he relying on the old quote: “Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.”? I wonder how he managed to keep track of that 23million pounds of funding?

  67. Seagull says:

    This does not let Jones off the hook. There has been extensive manipulation of Australian temperature data, attributed by the Australian BOM to CRU. Base line data from early 20th century has been adjusted down, and the UHI is never acknowledged. From non urban stations there is no convincing evidence of significant warming since 1880. Annual temperature variations due to rainfall variation, in a continent where long droughts are endemic, are greater than any likely long term trend to warming.

  68. Tenuc says:

    Prof. Phil Jones must have been to hell and back since the Climategate document were ‘leaked’. Perhaps no surprise that after a spell of reflection away from his desk he’s had time to consider the impact of his behaviour and the effect of this on the science behind the CAGW scam.

    It is ironic that agreement that the hypothesis of man-made global warming has been falsified should come from the mouth of one of it’s strongest protagonists. He has been fooled by the vagaries of the deterministic chaos inherent in our quasi-cyclical and unpredictable climate – if only he’d listened to the lessons of Lorenz.

    I wonder how soon it will be before other ‘die-hard believers’ start to recant?

  69. KimW says:

    One word. Phlogiston. Frankly, words utterly fail me. The more we look, the more fallacies we find – and they believed him. The MSM went utterly in the tank for him.

  70. ChapinEngland says:

    See also: “World may not be warming, say scientists” (Times Online, today).

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

  71. John says:

    The loud sound you just heard was a paradigm shift without a clutch.

    There is a great disturbance in the Force, Luke.

    Will someone please bring the stake and a mallet so we can slay this monster for all time.

  72. D. King says:

    All this from the guy who wants to redefine the peer
    review process to exclude dissent. The guy who looks
    to get periodical editors fired for publishing dissenting
    views. He will never regain any credibility.

  73. Jimbo says:

    “A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming
    It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.”

    Anyone other that Prof. Jones stating what is said in the interview about no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years and the possibility of worldwide MWP would be attacked as a misinformed sceptic. Maybe he is becoming more sceptical because he can see where the ship is headed and its time to jump ship.

    As a commenter observed in the Mail on Sunday:

    “The man contradicts himself several times, not only in this piece but in past statements, including one claim that he had “lost” all data during a relocation, destroyed it because he “didn’t have storage space.””

    Now he

    “admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
    …….
    his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
    ……
    his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.”

    Yet he can find data to share with his colleagues and helps write up reports for the IPCC. He probably suspects that the investigation into CRU might reveal that the dog did not eat the data (just speculating), but he’s looks ready to jump ship.

  74. Jimbo says:

    Correction:
    “but he’s looks ready to jump ship.”

    “but he looks ready to jump ship.”

  75. DaveJR says:

    “I find this amazing. Jones appears to be saying that the only reason for accepting the idea of AGW is that he can’t think of anything else.”

    That has been the argument all along. You may hear it more commonly referred to as “The models can’t reproduce the warming without using increased CO2″. Of course, the models can’t reproduce lack of warming without removing CO2 or tweaking a few fudge factors either.

  76. Jimbo says:

    >>People often note strange ad placement from the
    >>Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.

    By the way Anthony Google ads are triggered not only by key words you search for but also by location. Even if you did not do a keyword search but clicked on a suggested link you might see a different Google ad in the USA as compared to someon in the UK. Adword advertisers can choose geographic limitations for their ads.

  77. Latimer Alder says:

    @Julian in Wales

    ‘Can someone tell me: If one removes the hockey stick data what other compelling evidence is there out there of a direct correlation between C02 build up and warming? Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?’

    Because Jones and Mann told you so.

    Just shut up and pay up. Denialist!

  78. Archonix says:

    @Justin in Wales: It’s because CO2 can be directly tied to human activity. Try asking people to stump up money to control water vapour or even methane. “You want us to tax clouds and cow farts?”

  79. Peter says:

    “Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?”

    Peak Oil.

  80. Allan M says:

    Does this mean that Flash Gordon and his pet Milipede will have to apologise for prospectively calling Jones a “flat earther?”

    Especially if we get the Prof. to take a look at: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

  81. Cold Englishman says:

    I repeat:- Damage limitation, he has advice to get errors out up front, then move on, the AGW show will go on. Do not trust the Beeb.

    The models will reign supreme.

  82. dick chambers says:

    I like the mails accuracy – NOT
    “That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.”

    CRU temp data is not used in the “hockey stick”
    .

    “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.”

    not so the quote is:
    As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    i.e. the rate of warming is similar – not the actual warming amount

    The Mail and Telegraph – two of the most biassed papers out there
    They’re worse than the daily star “KILLER SQUIRREL ATTACKS THRILLSEEKERS AT ALTON TOWERS” At least they do not take themselves seriously!!
    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/122182/Killer-squirrel-attacks-thrillseekers-at-Alton-Towers/

  83. So…he smoked AGW.

    But he didn’t inhale.

  84. Julian Flood says:

    quote
    Q – 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?
    A – The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing . . .
    unquote

    What papers explain the warming in those ‘similar periods’ and what do they suggest produces the up-slope from 1910 to 1939? That most helpful of bloggers, Tamino, calculated the forcings from CO2 for that period and what we might term ‘the Hansen warming’. .25 w/m^2 vs 2 whole w/m^2. Eight times the CO2 forcing in the second warming period. So there was 1.75 w/m^2 in the first period from extra solar, or there was 1.75 w/^2 cooling in the second period or some combination of the two.

    Or something else is going on.

    This last statement is the one missing from CO2 science, the admission of ignorance: however, reading their emails or just looking at their pictures, one should not expect the leaders in the field to do modesty.

    If I were them I’d abandon pure physical explanations and have a look at the biology. A recent paper (peer reviewed for what that’s worth nowadays) demonstrates the ability of bacteria to control precipitation over rain forests. The science of di-methyl sulphide’s (DMS) contribution to boundary layer cloud formation over the oceans is understood at least at a qualitative level. If we have disturbed the biology of the upper ocean then there is plenty of reasons to expect fluctuations in temperature/cloud.weather.

    ‘Can’t think of anything else’ is not an indication of sound science, it’s the sign of a limited mind. Here you go, here’s two ‘elses’:

    1. Dissolved silica in the oceans from massive land disruption caused by agriculture has tilted the balance of nutrients away from the (very reflective) calcium-fixing plankton (which are good at producing DMS and preferentially fix light carbon) to diatoms, which are comparatively poor at DMS and poor at discriminating against C13. A silica-rich ocean will a)warm — fewer clouds b)warm — lower albedo c) pull down C13 leaving the atmosphere comparatively rich in C12.

    2. Oil spill and surfactant pollution have changed the thin layer which divides the ocean from the atmosphere. This layer (confusingly known also as the boundary layer) will control waves, salt condensation nuclei, the exchange of gases between the atmospheric and dissolved states, reduce evaporation. Polluted oceans will a)warm — fewer clouds because of fewer CCNs b)warm — lower evaporation reduces nutrient flow to the surface, fewer plankton, lower albedo c) send out a higher atmospheric C12 signal as starved phytos revert to C4 metabolism or are replaced by C4 phytos d)warm because smoothed waters emit less energy compared to waters which roughen up naturally when the wind blows e)warm because C4 phytos are not as good at DMS production f)warm because the coccolithophores, immensely reflective, will be unable to bloom.

    3. Something else we haven’t thought of.

    I bet that a research effort with real money behind it could explain the whole of Climate Change science and a few extra bits and pieces that the current hypothesis sweeps under the carpet using 1 and 2.

    Prediction: no science without prediction. OK…. Err…. Cod fry eat phytoplankton and not diatoms. How’s that?

    Julian Flood

  85. STEPHEN PARKER says:

    Remember, a couple of short months ago, gordon brown, British prime minister was calling sceptics ” flat earthers”

  86. maz2 says:

    “Climatology expert threatened for climate change views

    By MICHAEL COREN, QMI Agency

    Recently I interviewed professor Tim Ball on my TV show. Ball is a highly qualified and experienced academic with an expertise in historical climatology who rejects most of the current hysteria around climate change and global warming.

    He is a modest, gentle man who, in spite of his enormous work in the field and the chairing of inquiries and commissions into environmental causes, is now libelled, slandered, abused and threatened for his opinions.

    “If people knew just how deep and dark this conspiracy is — yes, conspiracy — they’d be amazed,” he explains. “More and more academics are standing up to refute climate-change theories, but it’s still dangerous to do so. It can mean the end of a career, the targeting of someone by well-organized fanatics.”

    I rather doubted this man who is arguably Canada’s leading scientific opponent of climate-change fundamentalism until the e-mails poured in after his television appearance. People wrote that he was in the pay of big oil, was a simple high-school geography teacher, was insane and worse. In fact, he is a university academic with impressive graduate degrees and doctorates and, unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody.”

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html

  87. Archonix says:

    Oops, I meant Julian in Wales, not Justin. My fingers have a mind of their own today. :)

  88. DirkH says:

    “Julian in Wales (03:13:12) :

    Can someone tell me: If one removes the hockey stick data what other compelling evidence is there out there of a direct correlation between C02 build up and warming?”

    Correlation? What correlation?

    CO2 vs temp HadCRUT3 :
    http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/tempco22008.gif
    CO2 vs temp UAH
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/satellite-confirms-that-global-temps-continue-decline-trend-a-minus-151f-per-century-rate.html

  89. Peter of Sydney says:

    I did say some time ago that Phil Jones could be forgiven for his sins if he admitted he was wrong and stated he would pursue the proper cause of action to find the truth. He’s getting there but not far enough. In a way this smells of a whitewash and I prefer he went all the way and categorically announced that AGW is a scam, or he was charged with fraud and made to face the courts.

  90. R.S.Brown says:

    The BBC write-up of Roger Harriban’s Q & A session with
    Dr. Jones is nicely and heavily edited:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

    There’s no mention of Jones stating that there
    hasn’t been any significant warming since 1995 in this…
    mostly just Jones admitting he’s a lousy record keeper.

    You have to follow the little link to Harriban’s interview
    with Jones, and then wade through a bunch of fluff to get
    to the 1995 no-warming statement.

    The recent cooling that Jones feels is not “statistically
    significant” is hiding there too.

    Obviously, the BBC doesn’t want to confuse it’s global
    readership with the opinions of one man (Jones) who’s
    recently been under considerable stress.

  91. anna v says:

    Re: Cold Englishman (Feb 14 03:41),

    Well, yes, there is a lot of economic inertia in having the CO2 as the culprit , so even if the brain washing is removed, the taxes might come, unless gods, or Gaea have a good sense of humor and escalate the cooling trend. Nothing can survive two more cold summers and winters.

  92. Tom P says:

    The Mail article misrepresents what Jones said. Quite rightly Jones states that there has been the warming trend that has been observed is not statistically significant at the 95% level since 1995. In other words there is a little better than a one in twenty chance that the trend could be due to the noise that is observed in the signal.

    This does not mean there has been no warming since 1995 – there obviously has been despite the Mail’s headline to the contrary. In fact the trend for a longer period is less than 5% likely to come from just noise in the signal.

    I await Steve McIntyre’s audit of the Mail’s ignorance of statistics with interest.

  93. Michael Lewis says:

    Jones has had a pivotal role in the AGM scam and has now sort of come clean.
    As important as he is, I still think that he was just a cog in the works. Mann must go but the exposure of AGM will start to have more meaning when Hansen is sacked and most importantly when someone investigates why it really happened. What really is the WWF? Who is Maurice Strong? Has George Soros had a role? I don’t like “conspiracy theories” – usually propagated by odd people, but it’s very strange the way the IPCC was set up, the way it was tuned to work in one way only, the way the “world government” aspects of Copenhagen (where there was a standing ovation for Hugo Chavez!) were grafted in. There’s a massive scandal here and it’s only starting with the crashing of AGW.

  94. KPO says:

    Cold Englishman (03:41:55) :

    I have got to go with you here – there is too much at stake for a humble, “oops I just can’t seem to find it – now where did I put them, silly me” absent minded professor routine. Sorry, too many years of distrust; This is a planned announcement and I am waiting for the counter-surge. We must not take our eye off the ball.

  95. Follow the current Boulton story at Climate Audit – and consider the impact of these issues (a) the resignation of Philip Campbell from Sir Muir Russell’s team; (b) CA is now demonstrating that Prof Geoffrey Boulton already is heavily involved as an AGW supporter.

    Both these choices of team members put grave doubts over Sir Muir’s claims that his team has no conflict of interests, or his own capacity to be neutral or to understand the depths of the problem.

    This development is really important IMHO. It shows clear evidence that any enquiry needs to drill even deeper, to get to the deep roots of the problem. It points back beautifully to Richard Courtney’s Global Warming: how it all began and Maggie Thatcher’s key role in putting the whole of UK research into an alarmist, and eventually fraudulent, spiral of degeneration.

    Sir Muir, it is indeed worse than predicted.

  96. Now the Sky truly is Falling.

  97. Misterar says:

    Sorry if this is a little off-message, but I received an email this morning from the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) exhorting me to sign an online petition to politicians to do more to combat climate change. They’ve probably been peddling this stuff for a time, but I hadn’t noticed it before. Here it is
    http://www.rspb.org.uk/applications/lettertothefuture/index.aspx?source=LTFITH0010
    While the scam unravels at one end, its proponents appear to be knitting furiously at the other.

  98. Ralph says:

    Ding dong the witch is dead, which old witch? The wicked AGW witch!

  99. Chuck L says:

    The last paragraph on the Times Online article:

    ‘Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”’

    The stake still has to be drivin through the heart.

  100. Chuck L says:

    So embarrassing – my comment should read “The stake still has to be driven (not drivin) through the heart.”

  101. JohnRS says:

    Despite this admission and all the other blows that their religion has taken in recent weeks the believers in the Green God (e.g the BBC’s Haribo) are still saying there’s no problem with the science, MMGW’s still happening etc etc.

    You have to wonder what it will take for them to really look at the eveidence.

  102. Jimbo says:

    The warmers want us to believe that the Medieval Warm Period was limited to the Northern Hemisphere.

    Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    “The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.”
    [Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors ]
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
    “He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global,…”
    [Wallace S. Broecker]
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497

    Von Rudolf Kipp – Guest Post at WUWT
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

  103. Onion says:

    So from Hansen (1981), we have the following prediction:

    CO2 warming will overwhelm other causes of climate variability by the year 2000. This prediction is made with a 95% confidence interval (2 standard deviations). After 2000, the influence of CO2 on warming will increase year on year exponentially, and the effect of other drivers of climate will diminish.

    What this means is that any warming up until the year 2000, according to Hansen, cannot be attributed with any degree of confidence to CO2 warming! This is straight from Hansen’s paper:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

    And now, for that all important period after 2000 when, according to Hansen, CO2 will overwhelm all other drivers of climate, we have this from Jones – that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. And that from 2002 onwards, by which time statistically significant CO2-warming should be appearing according to Hansen, there has been cooling instead

    Call me stupid, but have they not just falsified their own hypothesis?

  104. John Carter says:

    I just saw this over at Real Climate.
    Can anybody here please explain the answer given?
    ————————————————————-

    During an interview at the BBC on February 12 2010, Professor Jones from the CRU at the University of East Anglia was asked:

    “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?”

    In answer he gave the following figures for trends in global temperatures:

    Period Length Trend (oC per decade) Significant
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    The differences in these trends were not statistically significantly different.

    He also noted that from 1995-2009 the trend was 0.12C /decade although this was not quite significant at the 95% level

    From these figures it seems that there have been warming trends pre the industrial revolution no different from that seen in the latter part of the 20th century and that since 1995 there has been a decrease of about 25% in global temperature despite an increasse of about 8% in C02 concentration.

    [Response: None of these data are "preindustrial"--Jim]

    These data don’t seem to unequivocally support the claims that anthropogenic CO2 is the major driver of post industrial revolution increases in global temperature and that unless CO2 levels are reduced the global temperature will increase with catastrophic consequences.

    Are the denialists correct to be sceptical?

    [Response: Skepticism itself is never the problem. Everyone should be skeptical to some degree. Denying evidence because of preconceptions or bias is the problem. The interview with Jones is being passed around among denialists as some sort of “proof” that he’s admitted defeat, or AGW is wrong, or something or other. The very question itself reveals a kind of ignorance of the significance of historical data.
    There have been many times in the past, far far earlier than these, when temperature rose at the rate we have seen over the past few decades. This is not evidence that AGW is somehow falsified. Please re-read that statement. The relevant question here is one of proper attribution of the cause(s) of the observed global warming over the last century+. And on that, the evidence is clear that greenhouse gases are, far and away, the most likely cause of this warming. The rationale for that is beyond what can be explained here in a few sentences, but the main point is: the fact that temperatures have changed rapidly in the past, for whatever reason, has little relevance to the physical attribution of recent changes, which is based on a very solid knowledge of the physics of the planetary system. Go the “start here” link of this site and start reading. Then read some more. Then some more. Then you will begin to understand that this is a topic that has a great deal of sophisticated evidence behind it, contrary to the simplistic explanations you will find in the media and on the internet. Hope that helps.–Jim

  105. slow to follow says:

    Cold Englishman – I agree. For years the BEEB have lead news articles time and again with unprecedented chaos and calamity articles at peak time on all media fronts.

    Yet this story which says all the above is effectively bunkum is buried in the back of their website and gets intermittent mention tagged onto R4 news. The biggest story ever, that global catastrophe is cancelled or postponed or never was, is being lead by the blogs who in turn are followed by some of the printed media.

  106. Thank you, thank you for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on climategate.

    Decades of filth and deception in our most respected institutions, journals, news media and supposedly democratic forms of government lie just beneath the surface of the climategate iceberg.

    Keep up the good work!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  107. JMANON says:

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

    “Yes, but only just.”

    What kind of answer is that?
    Yes he agrees or no he doesn’t, but “only just” is a nonsense caveat.
    If there has been no significant warming then that’s it.

    Notice how precise he can be in question C:
    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. …….this trend is not statistically significant.

    No “only just” caveat here.

    This sort of answer gives a clue to his thinking.

  108. rbateman says:

    The world that might have been warming may not have been maybe warming after all.
    Translation: Whatever chance to really peg the last 100 years down solidly was forfeited when the Station List was subjected to massive deforestation.
    Thermometer Chainsaw Massacre.
    Yes, the Stations could be restored, but what does that leave us with?
    An instrumental record with battle damage.
    It gets worse: With each passing year that the Stations are in a gutted state, the uncertainty simply grows.

  109. Martin Ackroyd says:

    Kaboom (01:27:58) :

    “Beautiful! (snip) Congratulations Anthony, and all the other voices of reason. It was a long and closely-fought battle, but victory is sweet….)

    I don’t believe it. Victory is a long way away – if it ever happens.

    I’ll believe it when I can walk into B&Q and buy a 150W tungsten lamp bulb and the last wind farm has been dismantled.

  110. Rhys Jaggar says:

    I guess the only question is what would happen if he HADN’T agreed to publish such admissions??

  111. Stephen Wilde says:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735

    “Thus extra energy in the air from extra GHGs increases the evaporation rate which increases the speed of the hydrological cycle which prevents the extra energy in the air from warming the oceans whether via the ocean skin theory or otherwise.

    AGW is thus falsified because the air cannot warm the oceans and the air circulation systems always adjust to bring surface air temperatures back towards sea surface temperatures.

    Climate models do not reflect this obvious truth and the ideas of Tyndall et al whilst correct if taking the air in isolation cannot affect the global equilibrium temperature set by the constantly varying interplay of sun and oceans.”

    Dr. Miskolczi would appear to have provided mathematical proof of my assertions.

  112. Tom in Florida says:

    Folks, it’s time to be magnanimous. We need to show everyone who has hitched themselves to AGW that there will be no “I told you so”, there will be no gloating or bravado. We do not need those folks to dig in their heels out of self pride. Let’s make it easy for those to switch sides so that we can once and for all put a stake in the heart of this AGW vampire and be done with it. With the exception of the biggest vampire of them all, Al Gore (and I do mean biggest!)

  113. rob m says:

    @Julian in Wales (03:13:12) :

    “Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?”

    $$$

  114. DCC says:

    What an amazing defence! “I am poorly suited for the work that I do, bordering on incompetent, and I tend to stretch the truth except when I am denying the truth, but I do good work.”

    I guess it beats getting slapped into jail for violating the Freedom of Information laws. We’ve done away with looney bins.

  115. roconnell says:

    So let me get this straight
    “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. He further admitted that in the last 15 years there there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    From 1910 to 1940 …warming was natural
    From 1975 to 1998 …warming was natural
    From 1998 to 2010 …there has been no warming

    So the the only AGW warming in the last 110 years was from 1940 to 1975? What kind of “trend” is that?

  116. Bruce says:

    What is amazing is the utter silence in US “mainstream media” on this.

  117. Senator Inhofe has been emailed a summary and links to the BBC interview and Daily Mail articles. Sure hope Jones’ admissions make it into the Senate record soon, and before the EPA does anything foolish again.

  118. jamminn says:

    anyone see today’s nyt science page?

    http://imgur.com/VmwUr.jpg

  119. Ralph says:

    >> Graeme from Melbourne (02:44:04) :
    >>>Watch the alarmists now distance themselves from Mr Jones.

    They are already on R.C.. One comment says of Jones’ accounting practices: “”This is unacceptable and preposterous. There needs to be a professional running the show.””

    But he is being defended, thus far.

    .

  120. Mark says:

    Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.

  121. Roger Knights says:

    Lucy Skywalker (02:12:49) :

    I’m delighted with the questions underlying this article, that BBC Roger Harrabin framed;

    “… including several gathered from climate sceptics.”

    Robert (02:13:53) :

    Wow!! if this bombshell does not blow the AGW-train of the tracks than what will?

    It’ll take another dozen arrows to kill this elephant. (If only reporter David Rose had taped Dr. Lal’s confession!) Thank goodness they’re still raining down.

    Claude Harvey (02:39:56) :

    We’re reading the words of a fellow who realizes “the jig is up”. That leads us to one of two conclusions: 1) Before the fall, he was a conscious fraudster or 2) He had become so caught up in the “tribalism” of AGW versus the skeptics that the man became self-deluded.

    Reading the exposed E-mail files in conjunction with Jones’ recent candor moves me toward the “self-deluded” conclusion.

    I think the failure of Copenhagen, the election of Senator Brown, the pending defeat of PM Brown, the current poll results expressing growing disbelief in CAGW, the failure of renewable power sources to demonstrate their practicality, the collapse of the carbon-trading market price (and the evidence of massive fraud therein), the recent harsh winter in the UK and the NH, Glacier-gate, IPCC-gate, etc., etc. have lessened the pressure on members of the Team not to “let down their side” and to never say anything that might sabotage the momentum of the political crusade for a new climate treaty.

    That movement has not only stalled, it’s gone into reverse. So what he’s saying now is quite possibly what he would have said earlier, if he hadn’t been “in the arena.”

    I think in the past that he, like others, was caught up in a fad, or a collective psychological frenzy. (About 2/3 through a previous thread here I posted long extracts from Joel Best’s book, Flavor of the month: Why smart people fall for fads, that relate to this. Go here and search (Ctrl + F) for “flavor”):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/pielke-senior-arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/

    I can believe that he didn’t consciously do any deliberate data fudging, and that his office is a rat’s nest, which was why he didn’t want to share the data. It’s so human! (And so English! He’s like a dotty disorganized professor out of a classic English comedy.)

  122. DirkH says:

    “John Carter (05:27:53) :

    I just saw this over at Real Climate.
    Can anybody here please explain the answer given?
    ————————————————————-
    [...]
    There have been many times in the past, far far earlier than these, when temperature rose at the rate we have seen over the past few decades.”

    I will not go into the usual longwinded sentences with “it’s complicated, read some more (of our pal-reviewed papers) and then read even more (of our conjecture)”, that’s what they always say, but i find the snippet above striking. They will from now on have to omit the “unprecedented warming” assertion. Also, “far far earlier” is a strikingly scientific-sounding attribute, don’t ya think? Like “in the past”.

  123. rb Wright says:

    The American media has largely ignored stories about the Climategate Scandal, as most science news feed through the New York Times and the Associated Press.

    Writers like Andy Revkin now face the once in a lifetime opportunity of breaking the Phil Jones U-turn story to the American newspaper reader audience. Will they seize the moment?

  124. Tom T says:

    I don’t think it is a surprise that he said there is no warming since 1995, one of the email says “we can’t account for the lack of warming”.

  125. Robert Kral says:

    First, the “hide the decline” episode is incredibly important and must be turned into a club for beating Mann et al. on a frequent and persistent basis. During a period when we did have sophisticated intrumentation to measure temperature, the so-called “proxy” failed to correlate with the physical observations, so much so that they had to stop using it and graft the earlier proxy record to the modern instrumental record. So, during the time when the most detailed data are available, the proxy is not a proxy but actually moves in the opposite direction. In the face of this observation, to claim that earlier period of proxy data are still “valid”, as Jones and his colleagues have done, is risible. Worse, it is intellectually dishonest.

    Imagine a drug company testing a new treatment for arthritis. During the first year of testing, most of the patients show reduced symptoms and appear to be benefiting from the drug. Then, in the second year, the same number of patients show increased symptoms to the extent that the drug appears to be detrimental. What are the chances that such a drug would be approved? You are correct if you answered “zero”.

    Secondly, just remember Eisenhower’s observation (I can’t remember verbatim, but this is fairly close): “When you are engaged in any contest, you must act as though, up to the very last second, there is still a chance to lose it. This is war, this is politics, this is anything.”

    We cannot assume victory but must instead redouble our efforts. You can bet that the AGW side is getting ready for a Battle of the Bulge.

  126. ManbearPig says:

    Mr. Gore, would you care to comment please… what’s that? oh… yes, you are probably right , it would be in your best interest if you remain quiet.

  127. Sonicfrog says:

    Looks like the Jones bus has shifted into high gear and is doing donuts on the lawn of “consensus“.

  128. jryan says:

    So wait a minute… if Jones admits that there isn’t enought tropic and SH paleo to establish the dgree to which the MWP was present in those regions then what the hell are we even talking about?!

    And absent sufficient data, how did the MWP disappear from the paleo record of Mann, Jones, et al… he just admitted that he didn’t have enough data to counterbalance the MWP signal for the NH!

    This case will be studied by statisticians for decades to come on why you don’t place all of your trust into weighting to cover missing data.

    Now… let’s discuss the decades of pruning going on in the GHCN, and the over reliance on U.S. data stations and absurd weighting everywhere else, shall we?

  129. DCC says:

    @Mark (07:31:14) :
    “Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.”

    I’ve been trying to track down the Sunday Daily Mail’s references, too. The “no warming” seems to come from the BBC interview at http://tinyurl.com/y8ewylo , but the Mail also says “Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills.”

    I cannot find anything from the BBC that says anything similar. Is there another interview that hasn’t been recorded in Google yet? There have been comments elsewhere that the BBC Q&A has undergone revisions since the original version and the revision deleted a rather damning quote from Jones. We don’t know why the revision, perhaps Jones told them he was misquoted, but it’s frustrating that the Jones interview reports seem to have the same fluidity as the data that Jones caretakes.

    Meanwhile, I’m reading the Daily Mail as well as the BBC skeptically. The least the Mail could do is provide some links to the BBC. And the BBC should be honest when they make changes. Instead, they only tell us “Some brief answers have been slightly expanded following more information from UEA.” This sounds remarkably like the weasel words spoken by US Congressmen when they “reserve the right to revise and expand” their remarks before they are published in the official transactions of Congress.

  130. JackStraw says:

    Congratulations to Anthony, Steve McIntyre, Lord Monckton and all the other flat earth deniers of all stripes who never gave in to the abuse and kept pushing for the truth. This is truly an historic moment in this debate and you are owed great thanks for your efforts.

  131. marc says:

    @Mark (07:31:14) :
    “Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.”

    It’s in the BBC transcript:

    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.

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

    Is that what you were looking for?

  132. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Richard (01:19:35) :

    Phil Jones – If you tell the truth and truly repent of your sins – I forgive you.

    ================================================

    I will too!

    Everyone should get a second chance.

    He could do a lot of good in straightening out all the crooked science. And he could clear his conscience.

  133. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    Michael (01:30:06) :

    It’s a wonder what contemplating suicide will do to bring one to their senses.

    ——————————————-

    I read about that too. He said he wanted to stay alive for his family.

    I’m wondering if he’s doing this so he can be with his family with a clear conscience. Maybe they are the important things in his life now.

    I know I wouldn’t want to face this whole mess. It must be a rotten feeling to be involved in ClimateGate and be the biggest name it, to have your face on tv for it. How awful that must be! It will be a long trip out of it. But this is a big step toward that. I myself will forgive him if if comes completely clean. And I will have respect for him too for doing it!

  134. GaryPearse says:

    With u-turns and the flood of alternative climate science articles since climategate broke, We are seeing the pathology of consensus science and we would do well to mark and study this psychological disorder to anticipate future epidemics. The collapse has freed up institutional scientists from the consensus straight jacket and a flood of pent-up good science is pouring forth. Surely the research for all the exciting new work had been done before last November. Likely many were in the pipeline struggling against the synod of climate consensus masters. Certainlty no small part is the freeing up of the scientific journals, which have gone thru their own subjucation (I hope scientists favour the brave journals that did publish ‘seditious’climatolgy papers during the occupation and such sycophantic journals as Nature are knocked down a few dozen rungs). One needs no more than to look at the concensus that is created under tyrannical regimes for a model where “spontaneous” demonstrations for such a govenment occur and dissent is a crime against the state.

  135. Tom P says:

    marc (08:37:02)

    For a plot of the calculated significance level of the trend for GISS at the 95% level, see

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gissrat2.jpg

    The background to the calculation is here:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

    Jones is stating no more than the data allows. There is no U-turn by him or an admission that there has been no warming since 1995. That is the overexcited interpretation of those who can’t or won’t understand the basics of measuring a trend in noisy data.

  136. John Carter says:

    DirkH (07:40:09) :

    I was just staggered that they could spin this as they appear to have done. The assertion always was that the recent warming was unprecedented – hence the hockey stick to substantiate that.
    They now say, without any sign of remorse, that it isn’t unprecedented and yet there is still an unmistakable human induced signature in the late 20th century.
    It just seems bizarre.

  137. mandolinjon says:

    I find it interesting that the British press has made an effort to unravel the AGW sci fi while the MSM in the US is still defending AGW. My concern now is that while the AGW is falling from favor, the new mantra for the saving the planet is,
    ”climate change”. Our president has formed a cabinet level bureau to act as guardians of the climate. So it doesn’t matter whether the temperature goes up on down or whether Phil Jones lied or whether Mann is reprimanded, the climate is out of control. We must find a way to control the climate before it is too late! Any example of anomalous weather will be attributed to green house gas pollution of the atmosphere, just as before every unusual event was caused by global warming. As Phil Jones was quoted, we can’t think of any other reason. After all, there is snow in 49 states and that was never happened before (in the last 100 years). As a result the carbon tax advocates will sweep anthropogenic global warming under the bus using the hockey stick and then use every unusual weather event and a slue of government grants to develop evidence that the climate is acting up again. We don’t need “no stinkin’” statistical temperature data correlations, the climate guardians know it is man made and we need your taxes to stop it!

  138. MyersKL says:

    “I’m delighted with the questions underlying this article, that BBC Roger Harrabin framed; delighted with Jones’ responses; still clear that the BBC, and even more Phil Jones, have got to drill deeper before all the gangrene is cleared in this operation.

    To keep up the pressure at a tolerable level, I’d like to see here:
    (a) a re-examination of the Soon and Baliunas paper that got trashed by concerted Team effort
    (b) another look at Miskolczi. This recent article is excellent and readable for folk like me who still get a bit lost in the radiative physics. A great improvement on earlier material. It’s now endorsed by SPPI – Monckton is a brilliant mathematician, and has, at a guess, fully grasped Miskolczi’s maths. This is the classic proof that CO2 increase cannot warm the atmosphere, because the Earth already maintains constancy of GHG effect (done by lowering water vapour). The disproof theory is closely backed by the evidence. And NASA’s reaction described here clinches it to me.

    btw, Anthony and mods, can the Tips thread be automatically archived so that only the last week shows? I cannot use this thread – always too long to bring up”

    _____________

    As I wrote in my Examiner.com column last week, NASA was instrumental in preventing the publication of Miskolczi’s “greenhouse-constant” theory. See more here:

    NASA stops publication of Miskolczi’s research
    http://bit.ly/cHYVdc

    Also, Miskolczi defends his theory:
    http://bit.ly/dgjBSO

  139. dp says:

    K-Y? Is that an oblique suggestion the good professor may be facing jail time for his indiscretions.

  140. A C Osborn says:

    Dr Jones has NOT come clean, it was not only “hide the decline” in the emails, it was also exactly how it was done and what data Mix & Match was used to get the Hockey Stick.

  141. Roger Knights says:

    Summing up:


    Something is happening
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you?

  142. James F. Evans says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    Reputable scientists can still leave the sinking ship IPCC “Titanic” and other august bodies and safely get out of harm’s way.

    (Now, I’m glad Phil Jones has come forward and said what he did, but that guy has inflicted a lot of damage and I can’t see him getting off totally scot-free.)

    It’s scientists who are determined to defend the undefensible and cling to the mizen mast which will see their reputation’s diminished or potentially destroyed.

    Good for Henk Tennekes (and any other scientist that comes forward), his example is the best thing scientists can do for themselves and their respective disciplines.

    Reputable Science must excise this AGW cancer from the body.

  143. rbateman says:

    Not A Carbon Cow (07:03:40) :

    Senator Inhofe has been emailed a summary and links to the BBC interview and Daily Mail articles. Sure hope Jones’ admissions make it into the Senate record soon, and before the EPA does anything foolish again.

    Have you caught the distant and removed look in Lisa Jackson’s eyes?
    It’s going to take a lot of public outcry to wake the Engineer on that runaway freight train.

  144. A C Osborn says:

    See this
    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones

  145. A C Osborn says:

    Perhaps he hasn’t read his own emails lately and has forgotten what he wrote.

  146. Stephen Wilde says:

    Speaking as a lawyer I would have advised Phil Jones to say nothing at all.

    Comparing his recent pronouncements with the contents of the released emails is going to cause him some embarrassment.

  147. Doug in Seattle says:

    [sarc]
    Folks, you are forgetting that the underlying science of AGW remains unassailable.

    What is revealed in the BBC interview is only peripheral to the solid “settled” science of radiative forcing and the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming.
    [/sarc]

  148. PaulH says:

    Be sure to fix the names and faces of the crackpots at the heart of the AGW scam in your memory. Tell your children and grand-children about the lunacy and mayhem these crackpots caused, and how all the allegedly intelligent “world leaders” fell for this delusion and flushed enormous amounts of wealth down the drain.

  149. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    MyersKL (09:58:03) :

    As I wrote in my Examiner.com column last week, NASA was instrumental in preventing the publication of Miskolczi’s “greenhouse-constant” theory.

    —————————————————————————-

    Well that sucks. Where is the glorious NASA that put men on the moon?

  150. DirkH says:

    MyersKL (09:58:03) :

    Great, Kirk, to see you here! I enjoyed your article on Miskolczi very much. Keep up the good work!

  151. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    MyersKL (09:58:03) :

    This is a very nice interview. I think it would make a nice post for Anthony. I hope he considers it.

    “Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine”

    http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Former-NASA-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine

  152. DCC says:

    I previously posted DCC (08:16:21) :
    “I’ve been trying to track down the Sunday Daily Mail’s references, too. The “no warming” seems to come from the BBC interview at http://tinyurl.com/y8ewylo , but the Mail also says “Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills.””

    The next article (above this one) at wattsupwiththat gives a different reference to a BBC posting with the same Q & A title. It’s at http://tinyurl.com/yb9h7vd and is much differently formated and appears to contain a lot more details, but still no mention of the sloppy record keeping and no mention of not answering FOI requests because he had lost the data. Where did the Mail get these details?

    Unfortunately, tinyurl seems to be overloaded at the moment. That second reference is:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

  153. Gary McGuane says:

    Jones is quoted as saying he has not lost (or discarded?) any original data. “Professor Jones clarified later that when he had told me that his paper trail was insufficient he meant data trail. He insisted that he had not lost any original data, but that the sources of some of the data may have been insufficiently clear.”

    So if he hasn’t lost it, where is it? The talk of his “messy office” is a diversion. If he is coming clean, he will produce all of his original data. If he doesn’t, he is just trying to minimize the damage to him of climategate.

  154. Edward Bancroft says:

    I would not be so sure that “Ship IPCC Titanic” is going down fast. There is a lot of traction in the political domain with this issue, namely the prospect of billions in tax revenues means that the erroneous AGW claims will still be supported somehow. Probably by subverting ‘climate change catastrophe’ to ‘climate change precautions’, or just to keep IPCC going with extra funding to ‘eliminate the uncertainty’.

    There is some good which has come out of this debunking of the IPCC pseudo-science, in that more people are aware of the issues and any future climate research should now be conducted with the due propriety lacking from the CRU and the other implicated centres.

    However, it is not time to back off from a complete dismantling of the AGW myth. It has had the potential to become one of the world’s greatest misdirections and to have drastically reduced the living standards of billions, not to mention diverting funding from real environmental issues onto non-existent problems.

    The IPCC Titanic may be holed below the waterline, and some of the crew realise the ship is sinking, but the tables are not yet sliding across the dining room floor. Keep up the critical momentum.

  155. Josualdo says:

    Once the political machine is set up and going, scientists can be discarded. I doubt this will produce any effect on the politics and Agitprop of GW.

  156. Jordan says:

    mandolinjon (09:27:54) : ”climate change … So it doesn’t matter whether the temperature goes up on down or whether Phil Jones lied or whether Mann is reprimanded, the climate is out of control. We must find a way to control the climate before it is too late! Any example of anomalous weather will be attributed to green house gas pollution of the atmosphere, just as before every unusual event was caused by global warming.”

    The flaw in trying to switch from “global warming” to “climate change” is that CO2 is argued to interfere with the radiative properties of the atmosphere. Increased CO2 can only cause warming according to this throry – any other climate impact must be a consequence of the warming.

    If there is no evidence of warming, there is no evidence of “climate change”

  157. Nigel S says:

    dp (10:05:21)

    Thank goodness you beat me to it!

    I think the Rev. Anthony has a very wicked sense of humo(u)r

  158. Jeff Alberts says:

    dp (10:05:21) :

    K-Y? Is that an oblique suggestion the good professor may be facing jail time for his indiscretions.

    More like an indication of what he and Mann and all the Team members have been doing to the public, without lubrication, I might add.

  159. Mark says:

    @marc (08:37:02)

    Yes, that’s what I was looking for. Thanks.

  160. dave ward says:

    There’s an article about the U.K. Met Office’s supercomputer in today’s Daily Mail, if anyone’s interested:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1249957/The-Met-Offices-33-million-supercomputer-keeps-Britain–world–turning–Now-try-complaining-forecast.html

  161. Chris says:

    Is any of this getting to the EPA? How can they defend their endangerment finding now?

  162. Veronica (England) says:

    I expect Phil Jones has felt very stressed over the last few years as he tried to hold up the house of cards that was AGW. Confession is good for the soul and he has now confessed that the data is at best ambiguous and at worst, falsified.

    I hope he now does more to help untangle the mess and find out which pieces of the science do actually hold up.

    It’s not the end, but it could be the beginning of the end.

    The piece in today’s Observer newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology
    referred to “scientists” (pro-AGW) and “sceptics” as if the two terms are mutually exlusive. That to me was a very revealing turn of phrase and reveals how far we still have to go to get MSM away from the politics and focus on the facts.

  163. jorgekafkazar says:

    Glenn Haldane (01:27:23) : “…Jones appears to be saying that the only reason for accepting the idea of AGW is that he can’t think of anything else….No prosecuting counsel would dare to appear in court with a case founded on such an inadequate idea – essentially, ‘the accused person must have done it because we haven’t been able to find anyone else who might have’.

    “Is this really a fair summary of the AGW case?”

    Yup. Sounds like Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, to me. The Warmist Willies’ favorite argument (just ahead of ad hominem.)

  164. jorgekafkazar says:

    Gary McGuane (11:36:39) :”So if [Jones] hasn’t lost [the data], where is it? The talk of his “messy office” is a diversion. If he is coming clean, he will produce all of his original data. If he doesn’t, he is just trying to minimize the damage to him of climategate.”

    He found it at home, on the floor of his dog house.

  165. Tim says:

    I’ve always thought the google ads to the pro-warmist sites on this site were the ultimate irony. They can’t answer any serious question and yet through google they help Mr Watts pay for this site. Ah how sweet it is.

    Congrats to this site and climate audit for non-stop pushing this 8-ball up a hill with a wet spaghetti noodle all these years.

  166. JER0ME says:

    There are many who claim they would forgive Phil if he “came clean”. He has, though.

    1. He tells us there has been no “statistically-significant global warming” since 1995.

    2. He tells he no longer has the data to support past ‘proofs’ for AGW.

    3. He tells us if the MWP was global it would disprove all current AGW hypothesises:
    “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.”
    As far as I am aware it has been reasonably proved (see references in an earlier comment).

    4. The debate is not over:
    “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”

    And there is no solid reason for the AGW argument other than there is nothing else we can see that is causing this (admittedly not unprecedented) current warming trend that is not greater than previous pre-industrial warming trends:
    “… what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?”
    The answer:
    “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.”
    And his answer to question D:
    “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. …”

    So he is coming clean.

    He has not changed his views, even though he has just proved them most likely ill-founded:

    I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions.

    I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound.

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed.

    I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    So he’s telling us the data and the science do not support AGW theory, but he believes in it 100%. That works for me.

  167. johnnythelowery says:

    I’m concerned that the missing data will miraculously (oh, and by the way, could you check his garden shed. Thats the first place i’d start looking for some leafs of inconvenient data!!! ) appear replete with favourable AGW readings. O’Bama has made Green Jobs a corner stone of his re-employment programs in the U.S. (which just increased the National Debt ceiling to @$14.6 Trillion). My worry is that this whole climate monitoring process is going to go ‘Big Iron’ and as it’s a matter of National Security (to have a viable economy)’, access will be provided to only a few. You just have to know how hard the yanks are kicking themselves that they left it to a dork like Jones at an amateur institution like the CRU, a principal player who is incapable of basic data house keeping (only lost some of the data-why not all of it!) and incapable of covering his tracks (leak) and incapable of ‘staying on message’. This scandal is going to damage US / UK relations for decades (who left the Kuwait invasion plans in his car which was then stolen) as it is going to bring down the back bone of O’bama’s jobsworth strategy. Do you really think they are going to let the skeptics have access to the ‘Big Iron’ data.

    to Phil Jones: who said “come unto me all who a weary laden and I will give rest unto you soul?”

  168. MikeN says:

    No statistically significant warming since 1995, but statistically significant warming going further back. Also, he says that it just missed being statistically significant, and he has the warming at .12C per decade.

  169. johnnythelowery says:

    BTW- Here In the U.S. the ‘Drudge’ site ( a news aggregator) has been featuring headlines from the collapse of AGW. Here is their site viewership numbers:

    020,508,806 IN PAST 24 HOURS
    771,872,446 IN PAST 31 DAYS
    7,929,020,523 IN PAST YEAR
    Catching up with WUWT site!!

    The word is getting out. It just hasn’t reached the schools as my 9 year old son came home in a panic about what he was told about AGW and CO2 the other day.

    Be patient. We have years and years to go. Maybe AGW will morph into AGCooling. Anything for cash!

  170. Scipio says:

    All these elevations since the leak from CRU in November have just been dumbfounding. The house of cards keeps crumbling.

    Scipio

  171. Scipio says:

    Sorry about that its is supposed to read ‘revelations’. Hit the wrong suggestion in spell check! Doh.

    Scipio

  172. Scipio says:

    Oh he!! I give up ‘its is’ whatever. I can’t type and think at the same time.

  173. CodeTech says:

    johnnythelowery, that bit about scaring the school kids enrages me. I also was taught things in school that worried me: new ice age, by the time I was old enough to have a car there would be no oil left, it was all moot, we probably would have a nuclear war first, etc.

    As I’ve always said about these things: LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. Teach facts, let them join their own churches. If they want to be Scientologists or AGW’ers, so be it.

  174. Clive says:

    This may have been floated…not read the posts here.

    Jones may or may not have a job at CRU anymore. If he does it would be difficult at best.

    Why does he not simply “turn coat” and come on over and start some REAL whistle blowing. I bet within a few days more would come over. Sure “grant and tenure” will get in the way, but golly gee if there is SO much interest in CC and GW why can’t grants be given to support the counter arguments. At some point with “science” getting a bad wrap won’t corporations stand up and say, “You know the science is NOT settled, let’s get it right before was waste trillions. We support further investigations!”

    I’d admire that. Would others? (Well besides all of you at WUWT!) There are enough doubters now that corps my not have to endure backlash. Could happen. Maybe this has not matured to that stage yet. Maybe I am naive.

    But my bags are packed and I am going to Kauai for two weeks. ☺

    Mind the the shop while I am away.

    Clive

  175. Ed Murphy says:

    I just cannot get over how little girly-men like these could conceive the biggest scientific frauds in history. Real men will eventually show them a thing or two when the going gets really tough. Better find a way to warm this planet back up girls, or effectively deal with a cold and damp one, and quickly.

  176. Kate says:

    Considering the amazing implications of Jone’s statements, you may be surprised that there is not a single mention of any of this in the Guardian, the Independent or the BBC. No headlines. No by-lines. No comment.

    Even more sinister is the complete silence from every politician, government minister, and senior civil servant in Britain. I can assure all of them, (cowards that they are), if you ignore us we are not going away.

    Meanwhile, in the U.S….

    Utah’s House of Representatives has adopted a resolution condemning “climate alarmists”, and disputing any scientific basis for global warming. The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, states that carbon dioxide is “essentially harmless” to human beings and good for plants.

    The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a “well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate “tricks” related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome”. It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a “gravy train” and their efforts would “ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty”.

    In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilization and abortion. By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, the bill dropped the word “conspiracy”, and described climate science as “questionable” rather than “flawed”.

    However, it insisted that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions “until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated”. As Noel explained: “Sometimes … we need to have the courage to do nothing.”

  177. David Ball says:

    Kate (00:32:33) : Just wanted to say that I enjoy your posts. Thank you.

  178. RockyRoad says:

    Maybe dementia has set in–Jones is now 57 and pushing 58. I know of a number of people that have gotten Alzheimer’s in their 50′s, indeed, even in their 40′s. This sounds like someone that cannot remember their prior positions so stating something very contrary (yet true) is likely but damning; duplicity is easy to demonstrate.

    I hope this “outing” will make him reconsider his threat of suicide. Phil will become a martyr for AGW if he does that.

  179. Mike Ramsey says:

    TerrySkinner (01:47:58) :

    I should really like to see the e-mail back and forth amongst the CRU/NASA crowd that this piece has no doubt provoked.

    I am sure that they are using human couriers.  Only a fool would be using either e-mail or a cell phone. Putting anything in writing (snail-mail) would likewise be insane. Even if encrypted, the code can eventually be broken. See for example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project 

    Of course, one can hope.  I mean, how smart can these people be?

    Mike Ramsey

  180. johnnythelowery says:

    Codetech: CodeTech (21:44:10) : …..johnnythelowery, that bit about scaring the school kids enrages me. I also was taught things in school that worried me: new ice age, by the time I was old enough to have a car there would be no oil left, it was all moot, we probably would have a nuclear war first, etc.
    As I’ve always said about these things: LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. Teach facts, let them join their own churches. If they want to be Scientologists or AGW’ers, so be it……

    Regarding kids & the CO2 scare:
    I recall doing (in the UK) a green paper @ 1969, instigated by my teacher, on the high operational ceiling of Concorde and how it was going to destroy Ozone. I was 8 and still remember it to this day!!

    It’s going to be tough to unprogram all these kids so we can expect waves
    of ‘AGW driven by CO2′ thinking to keep coming around, perhaps, for the rest of our lives.

  181. Max says:

    What I find interesting and disturbing is that when they get informed questions and criticism, then suddenly all the confidence and significance shrinks. And I am a bit worried about this, because it shows that science has a problem with critical questions nowadays. One can only hope that this kind of behaviour is unique in politically important sciences and doesn’t persist in less policy relevant ones…

    Perhaps it is also more significant in science of complex models and systems, like Earth sciences or econometrics/statistics.

  182. Steve J says:

    We need a gallery of the lying “scientists”, clearly Jones lied.

    These clowns are in it for a few TRILLION to date.

    The entire group needs to be in prison, for life.

    Madoff was not as evil as this group, and he is in for life.

    Once the trials are over, the EPA will have a very hard time enforcing any more of its idiotic behavior.

    Yes, this will take some time – if we do not make an example of this group – real science will never be respected.

  183. johnnythelowery says:

    I can see the head line in the Sun “Emperor at center of ClimateGate strips down to his FLIP-FLOPS!!!”

  184. MartinGAtkins says:

    marc (08:37:02) :

    It’s in the BBC transcript:

    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,

    It’s good job Phil Jones didn’t go into the medical profession.

    Patient:- Doctor am I pregnant?

    Dr Phil:- Yes, but only just.

  185. psi says:

    Good for Phil Jones.

  186. John Haythornthwaite says:

    Actually read the full quotation of what Phil Jones said about the MWP in his BBC interview and compare it the IPCC Summary – shockingly (or not if you don’t lap the Daily Mail) they are both the same. Yet more pronouncements of AGW’s death and so forth. If you say something enough times it becomes true right?

  187. John Haythornthwaite says:

    His statement about the tempature trend being flat over the last 15 years:

    “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.”

    None of this is groundbreaking stuff. Basic principles of Statistics, not a revelatory admission of “surrender” as some here are so desperate to portray it as.

  188. Dan Olner says:

    Um… did any of you do stats 101? You know the difference between statistical significance and significance, right?

  189. Dan Olner says:

    Here’s the economist -

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/

    – if you need a little extra info on quite how badly the Mail reported that.

Comments are closed.