From the BBC
By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.
‘Bunker mentality’
Professor Jones agreed that scientists on both sides of the debate could suffer sometimes from a “bunker mentality”.
He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.
“The major datasets mostly agree,” he said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones’ strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: “There is some truth in that.
“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.
=========================
h/t Andrew Montford, See more at the BBC here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tokyoboy, This on line dictionary has a definition for “bunker menality”: http://www.merriam-webster.com/.
Tim Clark (14:00:04) :
“Phil buddy, could you put a robust number on that………”
Okay, lets try to enhance it;
“Phil buddy, be a Pal and put a robust number on that………”
Climate Progress is in deep denial today, running (old) pieces (“must read statements”) about the Met Office’s and the Royal Society’s deep attachment to agw science and their predictions of apocalyptic climate change,
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/13/science-met-office-and-royal-society-on-the-connection-between-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/#more-19169
with the related post beneath a link to
“MSNBC’s Ratigan: “These ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.”
I made a comment, suggesting they check out Jones’ statements (it’ll be modded in seconds I assume).
It has been a good day today. I woke up to a radio interview on the Beeb with Jones, I think, as I turned it off and went back to sleep, assuming it would be the same old tosh that State Radio always churns out – and I didn’t want to start Saturday feeling cross and irritable. So, finally woken and after a cup of coffee I checked out WUWT. I’ve been grinning all day. This really ought to be the end of the beginning.
Fingers crossed.
The two questions below from the BBC article and their answers show the deep flaw of the CRU science, if one can still call it science. If they acknowledge that there were several comparable warming periods many times before the current warming and only the current warming is being blamed on manmade greenhouse gases , a logical question would be how can we be sure that the cause of the past warming is not behind the current warming also. They have chosen to blame co2 for the current warming not because there is good science to prove so but because they cannot yet explain why warming in the past and present take place so by default,they blame co2? This is fine for a tentative and yet unproven hypothesis, but wrong and premature to use for a world wide energy policy costing the world trillions of dollars and possibly totally wasted. This is science at its worst with unproven and incomplete science being paraded as science. Then Jones makes it even worse by saying he is 100 % confident despite all the uncertainties the question “H ” raises?
Q&A from BBC article
H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Mike Bentley thanks, maybe best just not to have anything. May distract from the content.
“Great stuff. I would like to know how did you assembly gif or jpg into a video file.”
Several steps. First get the record set with an sql query, paste into Excel, and plot. Copy the plot and paste it into either Corel Draw or MS’s old PhotoDraw program and add the enhancements and text. Save as a jpg. Windows has MovieMaker as part of it, simply import each image as a storyboard item, set the time for each frame, test it, then compile into a movie.
Richard,
Let me know if you change your mind – the offer will stand…
Mike
Richard,
Thanks for the video. I’m going to watch it a few more times. This video needs to be circulated as your arguments are so interesting and well made. I look forward to seeing how well they hold up to informed challenges. Keep perfecting it.
I don’t think Jones, Mann, Pachauri or any of the rest should be tried for anything, at least not yet. In fact, I think some kind of resort should be built for them, their families, and their major political sponsors and supporters, where their health, wellbing, and most of all their longevity can be assured.
Under all the crud these people have been perpetrating as “science” lies very real evidence that the nature of climate is cyclical, and we are now entering a period of cold, dry drought. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is going to be a very severe, protracted, cold, dry drought.
Now consider – we are going to go into this period with:
– a greater number of mouths to feed and people to keep warm than ever,
– a smaller number of people than ever, as a percentage of overall population, who are in any way agrarian producers or self-sufficient – even including those at subsistence level standards,
– a significant and growing percentage of grainstocks previously available as “food” for humans or livestock being diverted to the production of ethanol,
– a western world, which, after over a decade chasing the folly of “sustainable energy” (wind farms etc) finds itself woefully energy deficient,
– a developing world which was always energy deficient and has deliberately been kept so as part of the “fight” against AGW,
– a world which, by and large, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy,
– a world which, at the political level, is still “addressing” the folly of the exact opposite conditions.
Or, in summary, we are probably catapulting headlong into a severe, cold, dry extended drought with no food, no energy, no money, and no political will to even recognise, let alone address the issue or the consequences. And those consequences include the very real prospect of hundreds of millions of people dying in the next couple of decades.
I think it’s time some of you people “celebrating” over the demise of AGW give some thought to what the now virtually inevitable, probably unavoidable consequences of this fraud are going to be. Then tell me again how we should “go soft” on Jones for his grudging “admissions” of what has already been disclosed anyway.
Personally, I think at some point in the future Jones, Mann, Pachauri and the rest, their families, sponsors and supporters should be helicopter’d into wherever the hunger, starvation and suffering are worst, so that the victims of their actions can pass judgment on their motives.
Richard,
By the way, I was taught that no argument is well made that does not include the strongest points that can be found to refute it. When you try to be reasonably critical of your video what do you see?
And now this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/climategate-scientist-says-g-warming-debate-not-over-discusses-hide-d
It doesn’t look good for Prof. Jones. Or for AGW, either.
Richard Wakefield (13:25:04) :
RockyRoad, it was a bit of a rush job, point them out in a private email and I’ll fix them. I’m also looking for the right music for a background, got some possibilities that are appropriate.
———–
Reply:
I can’t get to it until next week, which is probably not quick enough.
But if you can wait that long, tell me, how do I get your email? Will the moderator here send yours to me?
John G. Bell quality? Never said I was a movie producer. If you have an issue please tell me so I can fix it.
Michael J. Bentley, thanks. One I did think about using is Building a Mystery. There’s another by Madonna that would work well but can’t recall the name, searching for it.
Michael J. Bentley, I just checked an older video that I put a soundtrack on, they have muted it. Interesting.
Most important interview!
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/13_A_Most_Important_Interview.html
I think the interview should help Professor Jones at his parole hearing.
New report from “Der Bunker”;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
“”” Bruce (17:12:14) :
“The major datasets mostly agree”
How would he know? “””
Well that’s all well and good; they are actually all different in some way; which is not too surprising since they all are using different raw data sources.
But the real question is not whether they agree with each other; but how well do they agree with Gaia’s data set.
We know that Gaia always gets the right answere, because she has the most thermometers, and reads them more often; ontinuously in fact.
And that’s the rub; we mortals don’t have any where near enough thermometers to get agreement with Gaia’s data.
D -….
please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise
So if these basic parameters are outside his expertise, how the hell did he and his colleagues construct their climate models !!!
Yikes. Not a newsworthy story in the Northeast where we’ve had record snowfall and sustained low temperature.
The proof is in the environment, and it ain’t sayinb Global Warming.
The astounding aspect of this argument is the fact that humans believe that they could actually influence the temperature of the earth. Over hundreds of millions of years species from dinosaurs to man “destroyed” the plant and it seems to still be revolving just fine, thank you.
He didn’t want to share the data because it was not well organized.
I just learned a paper could go through the peer-review process without it’s data being well organized and easy to share…
We have nothing to do against it. We are destroying us day by day.
Summing up: