Some reflections on ego as scientific desire
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Anyone wondering why, in the face of contrary evidence, alarmists (such as Matthew English) have not admitted they were wrong (about ‘the pause’ or any other issue) might find the following quote from the Climategate archive interesting.
Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) once admitted in a Climategate email that he wants the world to experience ‘climate change’, to vindicate his ego:
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Source: Climatgate email http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1120593115.txt
Prioritising one’s ego above the posited pain and suffering on a global scale that climate change is supposed to bring – draw your own conclusions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whenever I read that quote I always wonder what “Political” means to the good Professor..
Self-interest is not the same as determining the right course of action for your people.
Phil Jones has been worrying since at least 2005. For him it’s been about winning and not about being right.
A far simpler word to accurately describe this charlatan is liar.
By the way where did Phil Jones get the “15 years before we get worried’” from???
A paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in May found that ocean waters below 700 meters (2,300 feet) have absorbed more heat since 1999:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html
Dr. Phil Jones is a misunderstood climate scientist of the highest pedigree. He likes sharing his views on death and data.
Here is Dr. Phil in the CRU emails on the death of CAGW sceptic John Daly
Yet after the leak of the CRU emails he wanted Princess Charlie boy to give him a loving kiss and cuddle while he threatened to top himself. What a piece of dog’s feces.
CarolinaCowboy…..did you follow the link in the article that you posted?
That “absorption” is model based.
WOHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOWWWWWWIE!
It must be difficult when you want that Government money but reality jumps up and bites you in the knees. I notice that after a lung transplant you have a 77% chance of being alive 12 months down the road, BUT, if the lung donor was a smoker you then have a 90% chance. Just like Dr Phil and his 15 year prediction, I bet they didn’t see that coming.
But soft, for my mind misgives etc…
CarolinaCowboy:
I’m no expert, and others here have written extensively on “Trenberth’s missing heat”.
I’ll just note that on clicking through to that article, I find it interesting how the authors present their data in terms of enormous numbers of Joules, or substantial fractions of a Watt per square meter. Why? How exactly are these measured?
I hope someone will tell me these authors aren’t starting with measurements of temperatures, and changes of tiny, tiny fractions of degrees, then extrapolating these through vast volumes of water to explain a very large energy discrepancy. Or, put another way, accounting for their “missing heat” by stashing it where no one can disprove it.
Thanks Eric. Good article.
It’s been 15 years since 1998, the year of the great El Niño.
Dr. Jones has surely started worrying before today. I think he was worrying in 2009. [Thanks Jimbo]
==================================================================
We’re so used hearing “climate change” used to cover that “global warming” isn’t happening I’m not sure what he meant. I’d hope that someone in his position would realize the the climate has naturally changed ever since there’s been one so I’ll assume he meant he hoped to see “The Hockey Stick” appear. It didn’t.
Has he ever said anything to indicate “the science” has been proven wrong? He seems to be implying that without what he wanted to see actually happening then “the science” would be proven wrong.
Doom-saying religious cults never recant their beliefs, instead they slowly slide into laughing stock status while everyone pretends not to have ever believed the scare that they were selling.
This is not science we are dealing with, it is religion, plain and simple. A warped hellfire and brimstone religion, for people who tell themselves they’re too smart to fall for a hellfire and brimstone religion.
Ego orientation is self destructive. Regardless of the field.
Jimbo says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:44 pm
By the way where did Phil Jones get the “15 years before we get worried’” from???
……………..
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
I think Dr. Jones was referring to half a climate period, or something of 30 years of length.
So Phil Jones says he is selfish, cheered by the death of a climate scientist, worried about 15 years of a lack of warming, feels like ending his life and is NOT political. Dr. Phil Jones needs to go seek help for his mental state and leave the ‘science’ of global warming to serious chaps. People who are not emotionally disturbed like Phil.
I can see that but what is your point? My point is that we were told 15 years or 17 years of statistically insignificant warming or cooler before the police started arresting these charlatans. Both have come and gone.
speaking of El NIno!
11 Feb: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Pacific weather watch gets urgent funds as El
Nino prospects grow
The leading US weather forecasting agency says the drop in data flowing from monitoring buoys is hampering its ability to detect changes in the Pacific, as conditions favouring a damaging El Nino cycle take shape…
The importance of the equatorial Pacific to global climate was unscored this week with new research led by Matthew England of the University of New South Wales showing east-west trade winds over the region had strengthened…
A report published on Monday in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said there’s a 75 per cent chance the El Nino weather pattern will occur in late 2014.
The research by Josef Ludescher and Armin Bunde from Germany’s Justus-Liebig University used a 12-month model that successfully predicted the absence of El Nino in the past two years.
The US Climate Prediction Centre said last week there is an increasing chance of an El Nino later this year.
Andrew Watkins, manager of climate predictions services at the Bureau of Meteorology, said an El Nino event was possible but no certainty. While there are signs of warming in the central Pacific, forecasters will have a clearer view by autumn, he said…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/pacific-weather-watch-gets-urgent-funds-as-el-nino-prospects-grow-20140210-32cno.html
Andres Valencia see this too. These people were over confident until the surface standstill persisted. Then they started backing out. I do believe that Gavin did the same despite his earlier position. See the date.
Jimbo, my point is that Dr. Jones recognized he would be proven wrong to forecast ongoing global warming if the hiatus went on for more that 15 years.
He has been proven wrong as he was afraid in 2009.
As you can clearly see Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt said in their own words that they would be worried by 15 years of a surface temperature standstill. Yet today they seek to back out. Arrive at your own honest conclusions about the kind of people we are dealing with.
Andres Valencia this is cheery news. 🙂
Andres Valencia:
At February 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm you write
No! Absolutely NOT!
You are confusing a period of climate with a Climate Normal period.
The period of 30 years as a Climate Normal period was decided in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). Its length was purely arbitrary and was chosen on the basis that it was then thought there was sufficient global data for the previous 30 years but not before that.
Importantly, the Climate Normal (i.e. 30 years) is a period for which average data can be obtained for comparison to similar data. So, for example, GISS and HadCRUTn data sets each uses an average of a 30 year period to obtain temperature anomalies by subtracting the Climate Normal average temperature from each obtained temperature, but they each use a different 30 year period for the Climate Normal.
The use of 30 years as Climate Normal is unfortunate. It is not a multiple of the solar cycle, the Hale Cycle, ENSO, etc.. But its choice was arbitrary and was made for an apparently good reason in 1958.
Importantly, the length of Climate Normal does NOT define climate data. However, because a Climate Normal period is 30 years, it is often asserted that a period over which climate data must be obtained is 30 years. This assertion is completely wrong. Any period can be used to provide climate data provided it is specified. So, for example, global temperature is estimated for months, for years and for decades. The 1994 IPCC Report used 4 year periods to assess changes in hurricane frequencies.
Richard
10 Feb: USA Today: Wendy Koch: Study: White and green roofs fight global warming
Painting roofs white or covering them with plants could help fight global warming, but they don’t offer the same bang for the buck everywhere, says a study Monday of six U.S. “megapolitan” regions…
“Each can completely offset the warming due to urban expansion and can even offset the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions,” says lead author Matei Georgescu, a sustainability scientist at Arizona State University…
The study, co-authored by three scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, used climate models to look at the potential benefits of cool and green roofs in metropolitan areas that are sprawling into “megapolitan” regions…
His study, funded by the National Science Foundation, was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
“The study is a step in the right direction and is consistent with other studies that suggest that cool roofs can offset localized urban heat island impacts,” says Mark Jacobson, an environmental engineering professor at Stanford University…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/10/white-green-roofs-global-warming/5341261/
Yes, Jimbo thanks for:
Real Climate – December 2007
Daniel Klein asks at #57:
“OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
……………
This is exactly my point, the hiatus proves the CAGW hypothesis (rock solid for the Goal Keepers) wrong.
ANYONE who uses the term ‘climate change’ must be challenged as to their meaning of that phrase. As Charles W. Cooke points out in a National Review column, ‘climate change’ is not measurable, therefore not provable. How convenient.