Daily Mail: The Jones U-turn

are you kidding me!?!?!?!!!!!
what will the trolls do now??

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….

Looks like the crumbling AGW dam is about to burst.

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.

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

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.

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

Another article —
“Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud”
By Marc Sheppard
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

“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”……..

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Not only that but Anthony made it into today’s (UK) Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

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.

And the countdown begins… 3… 2… 1…
“Throw him under a bus…!” They exclaim.
Watch the alarmists now distance themselves from Mr Jones.

Another error in the IPCC, this one minor, but:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology

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?

“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?

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…

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.

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

“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.

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?

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?

See also: “World may not be warming, say scientists” (Times Online, today).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

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.

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

>>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.

@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?”

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

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

“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

“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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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

anyone see today’s nyt science page?
http://imgur.com/VmwUr.jpg

“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”.

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”.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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

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.

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.

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.

MyersKL (09:58:03) :
Great, Kirk, to see you here! I enjoyed your article on Miskolczi very much. Keep up the good work!

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

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.

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”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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