Video: Dr. Phil Jones Climategate testimony at the British House of Commons

Thanks to Simon at Australian Climate Madness (ACM) the video of yesterday’s testimony by Dr. Phil Jones of UEA/CRU is now online via YouTube, making it viewable by millions worldwide. There are five parts, each of about 9 or 10 minutes. Jones is accompanied by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof. Edward Acton. Symon sums up the questioning: “They don’t exactly give PJ a tough ride, do they? To quote the former UK Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”. Fred Pearce of the Guardian commented that: “…the Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions”.

Here’s a sampling of what British press has to say. Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser and his CCNet Newsletter for the roundup.

MPs have quizzed the scientist at the centre of the “climategate” scandal, the first time he has been questioned in public since the row erupted. Professor Phil Jones used his appearance before the science committee to say that he had done nothing wrong. Earlier, critics told the MPs that the stolen e-mails, which appeared on the internet in November, raised questions about the integrity of climate science.

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming.  In emails stolen from the university he asks one climate change sceptic: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” In a grilling by MPs, Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some “pretty awful” emails. But he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists.

–Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2010

Lord Lawson called for scientists to be more open about their methodologies. “The Freedom of Information Act should not have been brought into this,” former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a longstanding critic of climate policy, told MPs. “Scientists of integrity reveal… all of their data and all their methods. They don’t need Freedom of Information Act requests to get this out of them.”

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

Also giving evidence alongside Lord Lawson was Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He said that sound science was based on “testability, replication, and verification”. Dr Peiser told the committee: “Of course, if you do not have the data sets or methods then you have to trust the word of a scientist. “You cannot even see if he has done these calculations directly on the basis of solid data, and this is the core of this problem – it is not about the overall science, it is about the process.”

–BBC News, 1 March 2010

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said. The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.

–Ben Webster, The Times, 1 March 2010

The body representing 36,000 UK physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climategate affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption. The Institute of Physics doesn’t pull any punches in the submission, one of around 50 presented to the Commons Select Committee enquiry into the Climategate archive. The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”

–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 1 March 2010

The entire 3 hours is available here via Windows Media Player:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979&player=windowsmedia

Sorry, the MP’s don’t seem to have a Mac/Quicktime link.

Select segments about 9-10 minutes each are available below.

Part1

Part2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

About these ads

107 thoughts on “Video: Dr. Phil Jones Climategate testimony at the British House of Commons

  1. Why can’t I watch youtube videos in work, dammit!

    REPLY: Your local network permissions/firewall may prohibit it. Nothing I can do. – Anthony

  2. Thanks for posting this. I watched a part yesterday. It shocks me how much he changed his story from the e-mails. I carefully reviewed the softball questions and it seems to me many had reviewed a lot of leaks e-mails before preparing questions. Very incriminating answers from Jones.
    At some point he may not have a criminal verdict but they may still choke funding to his pretend science.

  3. Acton seems to be overly dramatic on one hand and phony on the other.
    He says how important he is, how important the UEA is and its research and how important it is to get all information released. Then why did they block release of files?

    Graham Stringer (Lab) opened up with a “it’s nice to meet you having read all your emails over the past few days”

  4. Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO.

  5. @Anthony

    Sorry, I know it’s nothing to do with you or your site, I was just showing my frustration because I want to watch this but can’t!

  6. head of climate at the Met Office Julia Sligo.

    When I observed the tone and behavior coupled with her responses, The Queen of Climate Science for the Planet.
    Julia seems to look down at people that have the audacity to raise questions and offer even a hint of bad deeds.

    All true Scotsmen support her agenda.

  7. @ James Crisp –

    It probably will not give you comfort to know that Gavin Schmidt can probably view the youtube videos at work.

  8. Hi,
    The interesting evidence was also from Watson who implied that the problem of the Hockey Stick was resolved. Unfortunately no one asked him which way it was resolved

  9. Jones is to Brown as HealthCare is to Obama.

    Even though you’re failing
    Even when you can’t find
    A better way to procede
    Because your eyes are closed
    And your fingers are in your ears
    You are telling the truth
    When you say you can’t see anything
    And you can’t hear anything, either.

    The root of all evil is stupidity.

  10. James Crisp (06:02:11) :

    Why can’t I watch youtube videos in work, dammit!

    REPLY: Your local network permissions/firewall may prohibit it. Nothing I can do. – Anthony

    James,
    Simply switch to the Firefox brownser.
    If that does not work, Firefox has Add On’s like Down load helper 4.7 which allows you to down load and safe Youtube video’s to your hard disk and watch them off line.

  11. The integrity of climate change research is in doubt
    Translation: The integrity of the Progressive Agenda for a Global Government is in doubt…so we gotto make all this show and see if we can fix it”

    ♪♪♪ We and Mr. Jones
    we got a thing going on…
    we both know that it´s wrong
    But it´s too much strong to let it go now…

    We gotto be extra careful
    that we don´t build our hopes up too high…♪♪♪

  12. I don’t like Acton’s histrionics at all. He comes across as a deceitful showman. He keeps claiming how he’s longing to release data, but when data is not released he blames a handful of countries.

    He confesses to being a historian and not a scientist, and yet presumes to give a lecture on the overwhelming robustness of climate science. That in itself should be cause for alarm. Hopefully Acton will get his wish soon, and we will see all this data in the public domain. Then the work begins.

    I was pleased to see the Labour MP dragging Jones over the old Warwick Hughes issue – you didn’t want to give Warwick the data because you he only wants to find something wrong with it. Other than that I don’t see much value to the whole charade. I don’t know the name of that young man, but when he asked Jones if he thought his actions would be vindicated by the committee, then I knew we were in whitewash city.

  13. Watching and listening to Profs Jones and Acton reminds me of how venal and hubristic senior university staff can be! I thought the questions, although generally mildly phrased and enunciated, were quite searching, giving Jones and Acton considerable room to incriminate themselves. I have interveiwed miscreant schoolboys over the years who were more convincing than these two!

  14. Jones kept saying that the “products were available” over and over again. So I guess according to him there is no problem. When pressed for the underlying data, he said that it was available at NASA ans NOAA. Phil, you idiot! We don’t trust you. I want to be able to take YOUR data and confirm that YOUR data isn’t faulty. then take your data and process it with your computer filters to confirm that you haven’t, with your programmes forced results to confirm your hypothesis, then check YOUR programs to be certain that you haven’t manipulated the software. It does me no good to look at your “product” or other people’s data when your behavior is what I trust the least.

    Stop referring to other people’s data and your “product”. What a bullshitter!

  15. With the royal societies of chemistry, physics and statistics standing up for science, perhaps the royal society is feeling its name is too short, and wants to become the Royal Society of Climate Scientists. They could then explain withholding information in the CRU enquiry as standard practice in their line of work.

  16. Following the advice of Jerome Ravetz here on Wattsupwiththat – “Never forget that you might be wrong” – I had a stroll around the RealClimate site looking for their best shot at validating the AGW hypothesis.
    It linked to a “Stand Up for Climate Science” petition, http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?clim4tr&1
    and a sad little entry by Phil Jones:
    “195. Prof Phil Jones. Thanks guys, I need all the help I can get. Your support is much appreciated.”
    I guess he had it coming, but he looked like a frightened old man yesterday in London. Guys, the momentum is with us now: shouldn’t we now concentrate on scientific debate rather than further reviling Jones now that he’s down? Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.

  17. Did you see the Government Chief Scientific Advisor get a bit of a telling-off at the end?

    From watching that session I’d say that CRU,UEA, the Met office, AGW theory, are now toast.

  18. This may be a little off topic, but also sort of not.

    Monday, in the comments on the “Royal Statistical Society backs ‘models and data in the public domain'” topic, George E. Smith (17:34:05), replying to Leon Brozyna, wrote:

    “I would suggest that the bulk of the ‘scientific evidence’ related to ‘Climate’ or ‘Climate Change’ is not Physics at all; but is in fact statistics.”

    I don’t want to argue with that, but maybe scientific evidence related to Climate SHOULD be fed through the physics lens. It seems to me we should thank Al Whore, I mean Gore, for bringing some high-level focus to what we CAN learn about Climate Change… and long-term weather forecasting, as alternative ideas are explored. (Much as we should thank Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for showing us the potential and likely effects of concentration of political power.)

    Can any of you climate and/or physics experts (or anyone else with ability) give some feedback on this?:

    I know I might be behind on this (being a relative rookie here), but I suspect there are more and more rookies on the site these days.

  19. Also the Chief Obfuscator Acton lied when he said that Canada wouldn’t allow the release of the data. That is a complete lie. Canada make no such restrictions. The only thing Cnada would like is the acknowledgment that they participated in the data collection and according requests that data links point sto environment Canada, which make all data publicly available. I know because I use it every day.

    This is what those academic scientific dictators do. They nuance lies.

  20. Jones’ body language at the start of his questioning says it all.

    All that needs to come of this is that the raw data be reviewed for accuracy (tyvm Mr. Watts) and then the analyses be performed to see the “accuracy” or lack of same in the models used to predict past and future climate trends.

    We need this information so that we will know what is going on. We do not need an agenda-driven exhortation to spend what is left of our quickly diminishing pile of cash.

  21. Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. The flaws in Gore’s film and the errors in the 2007 UN IPCC Report that have been discovered since the award was given should disqualify both parties. Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during World War II to save the lives of over 2,500 Jewish children is much more deserving. Please sign the petition to demand that Gore and the UN IPCC have their award taken away. http://www.stripgore.com

  22. paul (07:40:59) :
    “Also the Chief Obfuscator Acton lied when he said that Canada wouldn’t allow the release of the data. That is a complete lie. ”

    Paul;

    That is just part of the normal progression. Two steps to go…

    To the people who have been unable to prove that humans can change the climate:

    Remember, when your position is weak.

    1. Exaggerate the problem.
    2. Attack the messenger not the message.
    3. Redirect the debate.
    4. Lie.
    5. Run away.
    6. Hide.

  23. “it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”

    Oh, the visual! Almost lost my keyboard!

    -Dave

  24. Jones is in a dire predicament and looks like a broken man. He knows just what a mess the original data was in and how it had to be massaged to ensure it would fit with the CAGW hypothesis, so better to lose or destroy it than prove his own guilt.

    If the world had continued to warm at the pre-1995 rate he would have got away with it, but he has already admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15y, so he and the theory of CAGW are now toast, whatever the outcome of this sham of an inquiry.

    It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.

  25. Brent Hargreaves said: “Don’t destroy his dignity.”

    The “his” is Jones.

    Will Jones, Gore, Pachauri/IPCC, Suzuki, Hansen, Mann, et al, accept culpability for this?

    “Baby survives parents’ global warming suicide pact

    A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.”

    “Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

    …-

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013473.html#comments

    “Y2Kyoto: Reducing Their Carbon Footprint

    One suicide note at a time;”

  26. Shades of David Kelly and the investigations into WMD. I genuinely hope the outcome is different.

    Despite my disdain for Jones’ blackening of British science, I do not wish him ill.

    On a related matter, it would appear that there’s a new response to ‘there’s no empirical evidence’ for AGW.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/climate-science-video-empirical-evidence-for-human-caused-global-warming/#more-20163

    My take is that much of this video is the results of warming, with a bit about radiative forcing. It didn’t address C02’s logrithmic absorption rates or the role of clouds.

    I’d be interested to hear others’ assessments on how this provides ‘empirical evidence’.

  27. Tenuc,

    “It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.”

    Choose from the following list:
    Energy security, green jobs, ocean acidification, climate justice, sustainable development, peak oil and clean energy.

  28. @Brent Hargreaves (07:33:22) : “Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.”

    Not yet, not yet. Jones will merely be (already has become) the alarmists’ chosen scapegoat while the rest fight on, as deviously and mendaciously as before. It’s far too big and wide-reaching to indulge in magnanimity (decency and reason, yes, always, but we *musn’t be fooled again*). The alarmist ranks may be wavering but they’re emphatically not running yet. Like Virgil said: “Spare the conquered when you’ve crushed the proud”. And there are a great number of very proud and very arrogant Lords of Warming who must be defeated yet. The suicide of the Argentinian couple and the murder and near-murder of their children, all driven by fear of global warming, fostered and generated by people like Jones, Gore, Mann etc etc speaks volumes and certainly hardens my heart against much sympathy for these wicked conmen.

    No. We need Nelson now: “”Never mind the manoeuvres, just go straight at ‘em.” Magnanimity’s for when they surrender and that ain’t yet.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

  29. Hopefully this will dampen “scientist worship” among certain segments of the population. Scientists are just human beings, with the same frailties and prejudices.

  30. A little OT, but the Met Office have given up the unequal struggle with the weather and has omitted to issue a Seasonal Forecast for Spring. The best they offer now is a mid-range thingummy up until the end of this month.

  31. This is all about politics: wanting to do things which we want. What do we want? We want to blame the Co2 (a gaseous fertilizer) as a taxeble pollutant. I’m stunned by the naive “scientists” responding to this trap.

  32. maz2 (08:43:13) :
    Brent Hargreaves said: “Don’t destroy his dignity.”
    The “his” is Jones.
    Will Jones, Gore, Pachauri/IPCC, Suzuki, Hansen, Mann, et al, accept culpability for this?
    “Baby survives parents’ global warming suicide pact.”

    That, and the deaths in the food riots in Haiti(pre-quake). The denial of energy to the 3rd world nations, (and the subsequent deaths). And the deaths caused by soaring energy costs forcing our poorer people to choose between heat and food during the winter(happens far more frequently than most realize).

    While I don’t hold those pin-heads responsible of other people’s acts of stupidity, they just as well as loaded the gun for all. Dignity? There must be a judgment day for those aforementioned people. And many more. Anything less and justice will be stripped of her dignity.

  33. @ James Sexton (09:08:39) :

    There’s one more thing to add to your list:

    ‘Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in trees and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up the carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra.’

    Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece

    It is beyond ironic that the green AGW proponents, in order to push their carbon mantra, devastate just those environments about which they’ve been preaching to us for years, and are apparently happy for an endangered species to get to the brink of extinction.

  34. Well, the historian, Prof Acton is aware of the MWP, wonder when he told Jones about it?

    Not only does Acton know about it he now thinks they need to do more research in to it. I assume that this research will be for an Acton UEA history paper, can’t ever see CRU getting funding for it. Or am I just being naïve?

    Also I wonder how much of CRU funding kept Acton & UEA going. Seems an awful lot of taxpayer cash for “a very small unit of only 3 full time academics”

  35. Brent Hargreaves (07:33:22) : “Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.”

    This isn’t even close to being over. When CAGW is dead and buried, then it’s time for magnanimity.

    BTW, the “pitiful” Dr. Jones is still lying; as the comments above illustrate, his testimony included at least two whoppers, i.e. withholding data was his “standard practice”, and Canadian temperature data is restricted. I don’t believe in “magnanimity” for unrepentant liars.

  36. Peter Hearnden (07:59:33) :

    ‘Richard M’ (07:27:03) :

    Is it possible we might discuss this without your best ‘argument’ being to accuse people of being ignorant?

    To quote a very astute fictional character. “Stupid is as stupid does.” Your silly attempt at redefining the scientific method can’t be called anything less than ignorant, and doing it here … [self snip].

  37. Viv Evans,

    “It is beyond ironic that the green AGW proponents, in order to push their carbon mantra, devastate just those environments about which they’ve been preaching to us for years, and are apparently happy for an endangered species to get to the brink of extinction.”

    It is not so ironic when you realise that these fanatics are motivated only by their hatred of humanity and modern civilization. In this sense, an extinction here or there is simply “collateral damage” as they their war against the rest of us.

  38. I wonder if the Big Bang show that had Sheldon digging himself a hole in front of the judge was a poke at….nah.

  39. When I first looked at this thread, I wasn’t able to get the link (glitch, I guess) to Prof. Jones’ evidence so I found it independently. Fortunately, the website I viewed contained the evidence of all the other witnesses for the inquiry on that day. It was striking to see how assured Lord Lawson (skeptic) was, even though some of the questioning he faced was pretty hostile, compared to Prof. Jones who looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
    It makes you wonder. Lawson came across as someone with nothing to hide while Jones was picking his words very carefully AND appeared to be receiving handwritten advice from some bloke (lawyer perhaps) sitting behind him.
    Man have these warmist guys got something to hide!

  40. Ritchie, James, I share your fury at the obscene fraud that is AGW.
    (RichieP (08:54:05) – “… these wicked conmen”,
    James Sexton (09:08:39) – “There must be a judgment day…”)

    If the Hockey Team didn’t believe their own pseudo-science I’d agree with you that the attack must go on. But listen to the interview Mann gave on 26 Feb – http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/ and I hope you’ll hear what I hear: this guy thinks he’s just an honest scientist being attacked by irrational savages who try to undermine his solid research and the consequent…. aaaah… apocalypse. Yes, he’s barking mad. Steven Mosher, here on WUWT argues that it’s a case of “Noble Cause Corruption”. Mann is wrong, not evil.

    Ritchie, your references to Virgil and Nelson make your point very well, but the historical metaphors I would offer are 1918 v 1945. The allies foolishly took Germany to the cleaners at the end of WWI, and wisely helped Germany back to health at the end of WWII. Fight the disease (self-calibrating data-withholding gravy-train futurological pseudo-science) not the patient.

    I suggest that a true victory would be Michael Mann declaring, “Based on the data I then had, the Hockey Stick was good science. But in the light of the new evidence, I agree that recent decades are well within historical range. Maybe the “driver” – if any driver is required – is solar. Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause.”

    And they all lived happily ever after ;-)

  41. Its amazing to some of us how caught up in all this we’ve all become. There is a very simple explanation for the entire debate about ‘global warming’.

  42. According to the local paper the UEA has vowed to “Learn from the row over climategate” This small article is not available online, so I’ve scanned and uploaded it here:

  43. Something was odd with this questioning and it has finally dawned on me. The defence being offered by Jones was that “all the information is available from other sources …. it’s all as clear as day, the FOI were totally unnecessary”.

    Except, whilst they asserted that it was all very simple and all the information was clear, the committee at the very end of the sessions had to ask Prof Beddington to contact them regarding exactly which data was really public.

    Put it this way: “the Science and Technology Committee were forced to make a special request (FOI) to obtain information because Prof Jones had so obfuscated about the information that he had failed to supply it as requested.”

  44. Vincent (08:53:54) : Tenuc said “It will be interesting to see what ‘Plan B’ the politicians come up with.”

    “Choose from the following list: Energy security, green jobs, ocean acidification, climate justice, sustainable development, peak oil and clean energy.”

    Astute, Tenuc & Vincent, but you omitted the actual Plan B: the potential for nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists and wackazoid governments all across the globe. Makes a little global warming look like a summer day at the beach…

  45. maz2 and James Sexton
    Rabid environmentalists will say “Not enough!”

    In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
    350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
    but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
    – Jacques Cousteau,
    UNESCO Courier

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
    more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
    – Club of Rome,
    Goals for Mankind

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    And a lot more of the same can be found at

    http://green-agenda.com/index.html

  46. Jones seems a bit of a wreck.
    Acton is just so slimy.

    I would normally just swear out loud but this bit, from Acton near the end, prompted me to post:

    “I’m immensely proud of what they’ve done. Without them, humanity would be vastly less able to understand climate change”.

    Probably been pheasant shooting with (prince) Charles. Accent is so similar. Condescending attitude so apparent. What a *$%^&$. Wonder if Pencil Shadow has bagged a good brace with them on a ‘jolly good afternoon’s shooting, followed by a few brandies in the drawing room, what?’.

    It’s all a show anyway, put on for our benefit. Make us think we live in a society where the people get to chose its direction. The Establishment rules and will not give up its rule.

  47. My Bad — second paragraph should be —

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
    more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
    – Club of Rome,
    Goals for Mankind

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

  48. I had to do this over. Are you sure your computer upgrade is working? Sure hope you haven’t been hacked! Anyway, lets start again.
    Its amazing to some of us how caught up in all this we’ve all become. There is a very simple explanation for the entire debate about ‘global warming’.
    The whole thing started with a student (maybe not a very good one) speculating about a perceived warming. OK, so some scientist before him had postulated the idea that there were gases in our atmosphere which contributed to an insulation effect that kept our planet warm enough to support life. After experimentation it was shown that the compound gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) were more responsible for this effect than the elemental gases (say oxygen and nitrogen for example).
    The theory that mankind could influence the weather was discussed for a while but was discounted by the the 1920’s and 30’s by several different experiments, some undertaken by eminent Nobel prize-winning scientists.
    Then we get to the 1960’s and 70’s by which time the whole thing has been overlaid by the Judeao-Christian guilt complex and Lo! it raises its ugly head again. But this time its not just that mankind can affect the weather but our input can only be detrimental.
    Hold your horses a second. What do we see? There is a perceived warming of the globe (thank your god for Anthony and others like him for pointing out that the measurements are probably bogus) and the doomsayers have their proof. We’re all going to to die of heat stroke and its all OUR FAULT! They can show that levels of CO2 are rising and, for the life of them, they can’t think of any source other than us, mankind.
    In real time, ie geological rather than human, the world is bound to be warming. its emerging from an ice age for crying out loud. Since the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportionate to temperature, it stands to reason that rising global temperatures would be accompanied by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. The surface of the world is 7/10’s water!
    It isn’t necessary to go into the theory of ‘greenhouse gases’ or the saturation of their effect, or to point out that next to H2O, CO2 is insignificant. Its just a case of, ‘beat me, whip me I’m a sinner’. It ain’t science, its religion.
    Rant over,
    Cheers

  49. For Ted Annonson et al.
    Too right fellas. They want to call us ‘deniers’ so that they can link us with something as horrendous as the holocaust. But their own propaganda leads only to (often, but not always unspoken) genocide.
    Hey, Al G. Too many people, huh? Wanna be the first into the gas chamber?

  50. RichieP (08:54:05) : Many have here said , way before “climate gate” that the actions of global warmers were punishable by law. Nobody has been punished yet, not only that but none of the perpetrators has even been separated from their jobs. This indicates that the IPCC and all its associated progressive agenda will go on no matter what happends around.

  51. @
    ‘I suggest that a true victory would be Michael Mann declaring, “Based on the data I then had, the Hockey Stick was good science. But in the light of the new evidence, I agree that recent decades are well within historical range. Maybe the “driver” – if any driver is required – is solar. Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause.”’
    ………….

    Mmm, maybe .. but, excuse me, my attention has been drawn to the squadron of flying pigs in the sky outside my window.

  52. Jones says that all of the RAW data is available from other organisations then Acton says that CRU do not get RAW data but monthly averages from the respective countries.

  53. Good rant Littlejohn.

    I think we all need to re-examine the world around us, in the light of the very apparent fraud and complicity of the media in a HUGE issue.

    What other issues are there, where we have to rely on the opinions of the UN or other ‘appointed’ experts? Swine flu? WHO? It’s all the same thing – the same agenda. The same Green Agenda. And the same people behind it.

    Investigate the Maurice Strong story to smell the full stench of the corruption that is involved.

    They’re into colour coded stuff (revolutions) and numerology.

    They are dangerous and they need to be stopped.

    They are off their collective trolley.

    Bill Gates saying (paraphrased) if we do a really great job with vaccination and health care we can reduce population growth by 10% had to be read twice by me, I must admit… Just saying.

  54. Patrick Davis (06:16:48) :

    Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO

    What. No mention of the XXXXX (I’ll observe Anthony’s request for politeness) Lib Dems?

  55. @ John Gill (10:35:37) :
    ” It was striking to see how assured Lord Lawson (skeptic) was, even though some of the questioning he faced was pretty hostile, compared to Prof. Jones who looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights.”

    Lawson’s an old-time political street-fighter and brawler who’s had to stand up to *really* hostile Parliamentary committees many times before (and he had to stand up to Thatcher in the end too, not an enviable position to be placed in). He’ll do fine for the front end in the UK just like, hopefully, Inhofe will in the States. I share neither of these men’s broad politics but they’re both hard men, just what’s needed politically in this battle.

    “Lord Lawson showed all the tough assurance that you would expect of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He over-rode interruptions, waved away questions about the funding of his climate-sceptic thinktank, and boomed forth in a husky, magisterial manner.
    He argued that ‘proper scientists, scientists of integrity, wish to reveal all their data’. They did not need to be forced by Freedom of Information rules to cough up the facts on which they base their conclusions.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254763/Lord-Lawson-labelled-climate-alarmists.html

  56. Couldn’t believe my ears but in response to a suggestion that a statistician should be on his review panel Muir Russell said he had had a submission from Michael Mann to be that person. If that happens it will confirm the whole thing as a farce.

  57. PaulH from Scotland says:

    My take is that much of this video is the results of warming, with a bit about radiative forcing. It didn’t address C02’s logrithmic absorption rates or the role of clouds.

    Well, a ten-minute video can’t talk about everything. And, what is there to address about the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration? Everybody agrees that this is the case. Scientists talk about the effect of CO2 in terms of the amount of warming that would occur from a doubling of CO2 concentration precisely because that is the natural thing to talk about (i.e., a given FRACTIONAL change in concentration rather than a given ABSOLUTE change in concentration) for something that depends logarithmically on concentration. End of story.

  58. @Brent Hargreaves
    “Fight the disease (self-calibrating data-withholding gravy-train futurological pseudo-science) not the patient.”

    I’d agree with this if it were only a matter of reverting and accepting true scientific principles and practice. It’s not though, is it? It’s an enormous political and social careering train-wreck that has to be cleared up before it runs over all of us.

  59. James Taranto is the editor of “Best of the Web” at, dare I mention its name, the Wall Street Journal. He has in the past weighed in with elan on some of the more questionable statements coming from the AGW supporters. The following is his summary of yesterday’s UK hearings.

    ” Is ‘Climate Science’ Science?
    Phil Jones, head of the scandal-plagued Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, testified yesterday before a committee of Britain’s Parliament, the Times of London reports:

    Professor Jones denied that he had tried to prevent alternative views being published by influencing the process of peer review under which scientific papers are scrutinised.

    He said: “I don’t think there is anything in those e-mails that supports any view that I have been trying to pervert the peer review process . . .” He added that it “hasn’t been standard practice” in climate science for all data to be disclosed.

    In one of the emails, as the Washington Post reported in November, Jones wrote: “”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Sounds perverted to us.

    As for Jones’s claim that disclosing data “hasn’t been standard practice,” the Times reports on an authoritative rebuttal:

    The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics. . . .

    ” n (sic) a written submission to the committee, the institute said that, assuming the e-mails were genuine, “worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”

    The e-mails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law,” it added.

    At this point, there’s a real question as to whether “climate science” even deserves to be called science.”

    It is a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. news media that the only major U.S. newspaper that reported on the hearing was the LA Times which picked up an AP wire that still felt it necessary to fall back upon the “consensus” argument. They ran the article on its “Science” page:

    “Edward Acton, the university’s vice chancellor, argued that the e-mails did not undermine the science of global warming.

    “There’s absolutely nothing hidden … it’s so overly endorsed by scientists, I’m puzzled we should be working on a savoring of doubt when in fact there is no doubt,” he told lawmakers and global warming skeptics.

    The scientific community appears to agree with Acton — more than 1,700 researchers signed a statement defending the evidence for climate change late last year.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-eu-britain-hacked-e-mails,0,6578153.story

  60. Even more staggering are the interviews with Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It beggars belief that these people hold the positions they do.

  61. @Patrick Davis (06:16:48) :
    “Errrmm….election year in the UK!!! In fact very soon, May possibly! I’d say a diversionary tactic as there are no worthy partys in the UK to vote for, well, maybe Monster Raving Loony Party, but you may as well vote Tory, Green or Labour IMO”

    That’s the problem we, the average punters, face in Britain – political parties that are either utter clones of each other on this issue (Tories aka BlueLab, Nuliebore, Limp Dems) or total no-hopers electorally like UKIP. This issue just isn’t, short of a miracle, going to be thrashed out between the usual political suspects here, as it may well be in the US. If it isn’t sorted out outside Parliament, by the evident and convincing destruction of the millennialist agw position, they won’t bother to do anything and will go with the flow, mostly the flow of the gravy train. Oh, and there’s the EU too, an even bigger and utterly unacountable (democratically and financially) AGW gravy train.

  62. Let me say that the only parties worth voting for in the UK are those which propose withdrawal from the EU.

    Anything else is voting for the EU / UN carbon tax, global government/governance, climate statistics massaging, international basnkster (I could go on) route.

    Let us instead use out votes in the democratic process to vote for withdrawal from the system, including, but not limited to, the climate bollocks. It must include ALL the bollocks. The men and women who speak that message – they are those who will gain our trust.

    Mexico and Rio are coming up. There is a battle to be fought folks. I think they’ve learnt their lesson after Copenhagen:

    This time there will be no mistakes. No blizzards, no cold temperatures.

  63. Little John (11:41:23) :
    ‘beat me, whip me I’m a sinner’. Yeah, this sorry episode says more about people than it does about physics.

    If ‘Neoapocalypticism’ isn’t a word, well it ought to be. This scare is just the latest in a series of imagined threats, from The Impending Flood, via Barbarians at the Gates and Flying Saucers and several more. It seems that such fears are hard-wired into us, a useful survival feature, which makes us (the great unwashed public) suckers for a silver-tongued Jeremiah (or is that a Goremiah?) chanting, “Repent, ye sinners, for the end is nigh.”

    But – lucky us! – we sons of Galileo have Scientific Method to protect us from runaway poppycock. It can’t prevent King Kong escaping and climbing up the Empire State Building (telepathy, cold fusion, AGW) but the biplanes will eventually arrive to give ‘im a good strafing. The AGW hypothesis was always destined to collapse when the pesky planet refused to cooperate; even corrupting the data could only delay the day of reckoning. But without Messrs Watts and McIntyre’s dogged auditing the gravy train would’ve rolled on for longer.

    It’s going to be fun watching the whole corrupt edifice come off the rails. Anybody fancy some futurology?! IPCC disbands in, what, 2012? 2015?

  64. What we need now is an american equivalent to these proceedings but with Mann and Al Gore in the hot seat….

  65. RichieP (12:56:43) :

    ‘It’s an enormous political and social careering train-wreck that has to be cleared up before it runs over all of us.’

    Maybe you’re right, Ritchie, and the AGW lobby’s momentum will prevent its collapse. But the mighty blows against it in the past four months have been thrilling, and many a climatologist will now be anxious to demonstrate proper practice. This should correct unconscious bias as well as conscious fraud leading, I hope, to Panic Over Day and annual public celebrations thereafter. ;-)

    I hope that the UEA mole will eventually reveal himself/herself. That person deserves an award.

  66. “It’s going to be fun watching the whole corrupt edifice come off the rails”

    I wish.

    Think we have to gather together enough human strength to push it off the rails, It’s like one of those magnet railways – strong forces hold it on track…

  67. The most worrying part of the dialogue was when Jones said that no one from the AGW proponent scientist viewpoint asked him for any evidence to back his conclusions.
    They just took his word for it -that’s “standard scientific practice”.
    The worlds economy dislocated because his friends are too stupid or lazy to bother examining the data on which this pack of cards is built

  68. 2′ 16″ into Part 3, Professor Edward Acton interjects: “May I point out, chair, that this is a very small unit . There are three full-time members of academic staff within it and the manpower involved in exactly what has just been described is actually very considerable. May I also point out that it is not a National archive, it is not a library, it is research unit. It has no special duty to conserve; (…).”

    Why on earth not? Are they so short of funding? Why is there no professional archivist in the unit? Why has Jones no personal assistant or secretary to arrange his desk after a day’s work? Acton’s statement unwittingly confirms what I have thought for some time now – that in spite of the trillions in the balance, the world’s climate data is in the hands of the rankest of amateurs.

  69. I bought the Telegraph today wondering what they wopuld report on yesterday;s parliamentary proceedings – I;d seen the link here last night but wanted to see it on the page, so to speak. A very small report on an inside page, buried next to a huge and colourful ad. Report by a junior girl reporter who clearly had no idea what she was on about, giving the final word to the AGw side. Who would think this paper boasts Delingpole and Booker among its luminaries?

    Meanwhile all the AGW blogs carry on in their usual manner, trashing WUWT and CA and ALL their contributors as ‘non-scientists’. And the MSM mostly still gives them the benefit of the doubt. Move along there, nothing to see…

    We may think here that a new day is dawionign, but outside the sceptic blogs there is still a mountian to climb. We have to keep reaching out and spreading the word, sending links, etc etc, No replyh form my email to Prince Charles’s office, following his vist to Norwich a few weeks ago, btw.

    I pray this Committee has time to report; but the Election is not ‘possibly’ in May – it HAS to be held by the first week of May at the latest. That’s when the present Govt’s mandate expires

  70. Apologies for more than usual typos, arthritis
    And a mac keyboard, therefore [almost] bald – I’m tired of replacing them!

  71. I have no pity for Jones. Now he is treated with kid gloves because of his mental state; but yet when he was the fulcrum of the global warming chase of heretics, he did not speak up or bat an eyelid; he provided the lies the eco-opportuniists required for their attempt at domination.

    Now he pleads weakness and sorryness. Sorry, no sorry allowed; you knew what you were doing – riding the gravy train. You knew you were being light and easy with the facts, providing what was required by the mob of hysterics your paymasters and dinner party guests, although deep down you knew it was a scam.

  72. @ coalsoffire (09:14:49) :
    “Forget about Jones. Why isn’t the Inquiry questioning Harry?”

    The real elephant in the room. Wouldn’t that be sweet?

  73. The “fortune” program on my home system came up with this piece of doggerel today:

    But scientists, who ought to know
    Assure us that it must be so.
    Oh, let us never, never doubt
    What nobody is sure about.

    — Hilaire Belloc

  74. Professor Jones, “most scientists do not want to see the raw data, they want to see the derived product.”

    Do you suppose he is talking about all of his chosen collaborators? The thousands of papers confirming AGW are only based on the derived products from a handfull of papers?

  75. Well I think this can be said musically.
    In the words of the general.

    “Lookin like a fool with your pants on the ground.”

  76. Tenuc (08:35:31) :

    Jones is in a dire predicament and looks like a broken man.

    The Sydney Morning Herald today quotes the Times that “the committee had been asked not to press him too closely because he was close to a nervous breakdown”.

    Who did the asking ? was the person medically qualified ?

  77. no problem with Mike’s Nature trick?

    Ya, I mean how could there be a problem with splicing different data sets together to produce a graph? That would be ‘standard practice’, I take it, in Phil Jones’ world.

  78. JonesII (07:07:52) :

    ♪♪♪ We and Mr. Jones
    we got a thing going on…
    we both know that it´s wrong
    But it´s too much strong to let it go now…

    We gotto be extra careful
    that we don´t build our hopes up too high…♪♪♪

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Nice.

  79. I have just watched the whole 3 hours of the select committee hearing at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979 (I had to use IE installed plugins etcetera but Firefox would not play). I appreciate the placing about a third of it on YouTube. I would like to get copy of the entire video, does anyone know how to do that?

    What struck me was that Jones did seem to have an idea of the scale and effect his pronouncements could have. He said his methods and data were not a requirement of the peer review process. I am not a scientist so I guess that is why this mystifies me, how can you do a review without it? Surely it not just a matter of Phil says it is okay so I will read it and if it fits the paradigm just tick it of as done? Please is that how science is done?

  80. OOPS It should have been.
    What struck me was that Jones did NOT seem to have an idea of the scale and effect his pronouncements could have.

  81. Well, I hope that’s not “it”. A few of these guys appear to have done their homework but I’m a bit perturbed that they seem over-obsessed with asking Dr. Jones for his opinion — as if it carried a lot of weight — about the propriety and nature of his statements and actions. He was given a great amount of space to spin statements, diminish their importance or minimize their context … “just a couple of papers I thought weren’t very good”, that sort of thing.

    There is clear, as has been said, “prima facae evidence” of corruption of the scientific process and lack of transparency, but as a scientist I agree that many of the things Jones et al are being charged with in these matters can be spun in various ways. He is doing a pretty good job of spinning, and being given an enormous leeway to do so.

    In the process, a very important series of issues is being washed under the bridge, which I regard as less susceptible to dissemblance and spin. These center around (i) the politicization of science and (ii) the construction of narratives and presentations of science, with much deliberation (as documented in the emails) to the end of communicating a skewed perception of both the 20th century evolution of temperature and the historical climate record.

    (i) and (ii) are inextricably linked. While it was possible to make charges about (i) without the climategate documents, it is the documentation of (ii) and the explicit thought processes showing motivation in the emails that show how thoroughly these gentlemen’s agenda was bent toward political purposes. These issues loom, in my mind, even higher than that of the damaging of the mechanism or reputation of “science” or the scientific process.

    I recall a blog piece by McIntyre back in November that brought this into focus quite well (I don’t have a link on hand). In it he discusses Gavin Schmidt et al’s spin on what the “decline” is REALLY about. Steve pointed out that they really didn’t want to go there … and proceeded to take the spun version and meticulously document where it leads by citations from the emails and the public record. As Steve pointed out, the “hiding of the decline” in and of itself is not particularly egregious, it is the motive and point of wanting to do so that opens up a can of worms. Hiding this decline in late 20th century tree ring data was not really about the 20th century at all — it was about hiding the MWP and LIA. The tree ring time series were critical in doing so, and the entire line of reasoning leading to the need to “hide the decline” because it cast these very series in a bad light is laid bare in all its glory in the emails and McIntyres expert analysis.

    Let’s hear from Jones why it is so important to prop up this series and the few others they’ve managed to cobble together to support this narrative when the bulk of holocene data clearly supports MWP/LIA.

    I’d love to see the inquiry go there and just ask watt’s up, er, with that!

  82. Did anyone catch Julia Slingos comment starting at about 2:52:00 saying that the uncertainties are an order of magnitude higher for satellites records than they are for the surface records. Is this correct?

    I thought I had read that the satellite records were the more reliable / accurate data source but, of course, have a shorter time series (only since 1979).

    I understand the Met office is more implicated in the land based data. Is this just some more “my work must be right” narcissism?

    Can anyone knowledgeably comment here?

  83. Keith Minto (19:27:14) :

    He did indeed look on the worn side. The guy sitting next to Phil was quite a show in himself. I can see what the supply side of the granting process is going to look like given all the bobbing and weaving going on.
    Several of the questioners were anything but pleased at the answers they were getting.

  84. Did anybody else notice that in the first segment Dr. Jones told the enquiry that all his basic data was available in the GHCN, but in the second he claimed the confidentiality prevented the release?

    These two statements are mutually contradictory.

  85. dkkraft (21:21:34) :…

    “Did anyone catch Julia Slingos comment starting at about 2:52:00 saying that the uncertainties are an order of magnitude higher for satellites records than they are for the surface records.”

    Good catch. I woud be curious to hear her explanation of this, and if it is true then the case for CAGW is hopeless to affirm.

  86. Jones and Big Ears were given a slap across the mush with a wet lettuce leaf.

    The last part of the video where the three wise monkeys appeared wasnt much better.

    Slingo was let off the hook, and not questioned about some serious comments she made ie

    1. Nominating the number of peope who made editorial suggestions in Chapter 1 & 6 as though that justiifed everything..and no follow up questions as to how many suggestions were taken up (very few in fact ) etc etc.Mclean should have a lot to say about this misrepresentation by her.

    2.Saying that Met offices models were run twice day as part of their weather predictions, and by inference saying that for climate models going out 50-100 years they would be accurate..because their twice day runs would/should have eliminated many of the code errors that may still be around…and no follow on questions from the inquirers. Just how weak is that.

    3.Watson saying the climate science is rock solid because they cant explain the increase without including induced co2 CC on top of natural,etc etc

    4. The certainly didnt make good use of McIntyres submission to question the CRU’s unacceptable behaviour.

    The Chairman said in his opening address that the inquiry wasnt about the science so why was Watson/Slingo etc allowed to get away with formal statements as to the validity of the science that are very debateable.

    The Vice Chancellor was particularly unimpressive .. with those huge ears flapping about I thought he was going to take off.

    Not impressed and not holding my breath.

  87. I so wish that the press would stop using the term “stolen” in relation to the e-mails. The information which they contained should, legally, have been earlier released in response to FOI requests. This is the Humpty Dumpty use of language in my view. How can information that should legally have been released into the public domain, be stolen by a member of the public?

    As for the questioning of Jones, “he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists.” This cries out for the response, “Please give me an example from outside climatology”. The answer might have been more revealing than the rest of the session.

  88. Neil Hampshire (06:42:43) :

    When will Micheal Mann be subject to a similar interview from US politicians?

    After the November elections.

  89. “Dr Peiser told the committee: “Of course, if you do not have the data sets or methods then you have to trust the word of a scientist. “You cannot even see if he has done these calculations directly on the basis of solid data, and this is the core of this problem – it is not about the overall science, it is about the process.””

    Not about the overall science (there’s a science of the overall? Dungaree Experiments? Who knew) … but about the process?

    And why, Dr Peiser, is the PROCESS important?

    Because unless you can review and analyse/test/falsify the process, you dont know that there WAS any science done.

    And, if you dont have the datasets (i.e. if the “scientist” wont give them to you) THEN you “have to trust” him?

    That is obscene.

    If he wont hand over the data and his treatment of it, then he IS NOT A SCIENTIST!

    Aaaargggghhh!

    And these people are going to set the world to rights?

    God help us!

  90. Aaaargggghhh!

    And these people are going to set the world to rights?

    God help us!

    An they will, whether we like it or not, because they are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their progressive ideology and how this ideology has benefited the world, how it has supposedly improved the rights and general welfare of the people of the whole world, since they appeared in the scene, during the “illumination and positive” and secularizing era, back in the 18th.century.

  91. Professor Jones’ came over as a little schoolboy who had been caught being naughty and was making unbelievable excuses for his behaviour. Acton came over as some form of alien being doing everything he could to protect his mutant offspring.

    This was a typical UK inquiry, the establishment putting on a show to placate the masses, protect their own and basically do nothing.

  92. As is so often the case, a hugely disappointing performance by select committee members. They really are appalling at asking questions. I know MPs have lots of demands on their time, but they could easily have prepaered some much more forensic questions that got to the heart of the issues. Why did they not establish that it is the fortran program that contains the “treatment” of the raw data, the fudge factor, etc, that is needed to properly replicate the work? Jones’ confirmation that this has never been released would then be put in proper context. Why do they not quote the emails that show that the data was in a complete mess? A complete anti-climax I’m afraid.

  93. Who was the person passing notes to Jones. Another climatologist or a lawyer? Can anyone put names to those faces? Their body language revealed more to me than Jones did. Smug smiles and dark frowns.

    I wonder what was on those notes? “Don’t use the Word station lists!”
    “Don’t mention other proxidata!” mmmm more secrets yet to come.

    These ex-scientists still firmly believe in climate change. The idea that AGW could be proven wrong in a scientific paper is impossible for them to conceive. When the politicians talked of people checking or SHOCK disproving the work the faces in the row behind Jones turned incredulous.

  94. Hi guys,
    I know it’s a little Off Topic, but I just had a long visit to the Deltoid website, hoping to have an intelligent exchange of ideas; maybe learn why their viewpoint is so different from ours; maybe hear some compelling evidence to shake my view that the AGW hypothesis is based on some sound science but dodgy non-sequiturs. After all, I reasoned, there must be many people in the warmist camp who are educated, sincere and well-informed.

    After a brief spell of courtesy, the insults started to flow. One or two people were kind enough to debate the science and gave me food for thought. After finally trying to discuss Popper’s principle of ‘falsifiability’, I’ve given up trying to build bridges. There (as here sometimes) there are angry loudmouths who only want to fight.

    I still say that with mutual courtesy and open minds, the two sides can at least agree what is undisputed physics, what the Scientific Method demands, what is undisputed measurement data, and especially what are falsifibility criteria to one day resolve this Great Debate. A bit less ad-hominem, and a bit more honest debate, and a lot more disclosure is surely in everybody’s interest.

  95. Wow, he (Phil Jones) seems very nervous during this interview. He should be. Think of a pharmaceutical company asking society to spend trillions of dollars to combat a plague that their ‘medicine’ will abate. And think of their lead (pharmacist) being caught with their pants down. And, after having the (self serving) scientific evidence that says, ‘trust me’.

Comments are closed.