This headline in the Sunday Daily Mail is quite something:
People often note strange ad placement from the Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.
WUWT readers may recall another prominent climate scientist who mentions “no statistically significant warming since 1995”. See this previous WUWT story:
A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming
It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
Being kind to the justifiably beleaguered Prof (without forgiving him), I wonder if the recent “excitement” in Jones’ life has caused him to quite-seriously examine his present professional position in its entirety.
Perhaps he is (if only subconsciously) now realizing just how ridiculously thin the ice is on AGW theory – and is trying to back away as far as he can while still retaining his dignity.
“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?
The BBC has the following: Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
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…
Is it a coincidence that last night at 19.00 BBC Radio 4 ran a fawning 15 minute profile of Pachauri only omitting his abilities to walk on water and then turn some of it into wine.
Would send a link but still cannot get tips and notes to work.
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.
Let the carbon traders, the carbon creditors, the carbon sequestrers, Gore’s GIM investors ( UK Anglican Church ? ), and the rest of the deluded fools start to become afraid, as in very afraid.
But we all knew this – Tremberth’s whining in the email about it being a “travesty” that no warming was happening was late confirmation of what many were saying beforehand.
So it is no sudden realisation on Jone’s part. He has been in it up to his neck for years.
Glenn, isn’t this the argumentum ad ignorantiam which Monckton continually criticises?
Have you seen this one? UK Sunday Times, quoting Christy, Anthony, McKitrick:
“World may not be warming, say scientists”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Climate scepticism goes mainstream!
Or Jones’ !
Watching this slow motion train wreck is very satisfying and I’m just waiting for someone in BC to start a class action lawsuit against the BC government to return the carbon taxes that were extorted from the population with the enabling legislation based on fraudulent information.
colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, sounds a lot like my home office where I usually have about 50 projects on the go which is why I now keep a copy of everything in multiple copies on multiple physically separated computers. If something gets lost then I can do a brute force search on all of the hard drives to find it — a lot faster than digging through tens of thousands of pieces of paper.
Knowing that I’m chronically disorganized means that I hire office staff to deal with trivial details that don’t interest me and they make sure that everything is organized. If I was responsible for personally keeping my patients medical records organized, I would have lost my medical license years ago because I find the medicine interesting, not the minutae of making sure the right piece of paper goes in the appropriate chart and certain idiotic forms are done before arbitrary deadlines. My office staff budget is far less than Dr. Jones could have spent on hiring an efficient secretary or three.
The BC College of Physicians ensures that all doctors record keeping is above a minimum standard but it is incredible that in the Jones case there was absolutely no oversight to ensure that the data utilized to produce conclusions which would have a very significant impact on the whole population of the planet was filed appropriately. I worked as a researcher before becoming a doctor and raw data was the most sacrosanct item in the lab as everything else was replaceable except for experimental data. Even I was able to be obsessive in keeping track of all details of experimental data despite an office that probably rivalled Jones’s in height of stacks of important papers.
“I forgot what I did with the original data” just won’t fly and the seemingly unsinkable ship AGW is going down as fast as the Titanic.
“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.
Boom goes the dynamite.
I found this the most interesting :
“Q – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre?
A – This area is slightly outside my area of expertise…..”
One criterion for the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship is the absence of other plausible explanations – here Jones is saying that he is not qualified to comment on the validity of alternative causes of a warming trend. So he can never be justified in stating categorically that CO2 is important and that action is required. He is merely a measurer of temperature – nothing more.
In this context, Roy Spencer’s views deserve much more attention: see “Natural Climate Variability as an Explanation for What The Models Can Not Mimic” @ur momisugly
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evidence-for-natural-climate-cycles-in-the-ipcc-climate-models-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/
Can someone tell me: If one removes the hockey stick data what other compelling evidence is there out there of a direct correlation between C02 build up and warming? Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?
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?
This does not let Jones off the hook. There has been extensive manipulation of Australian temperature data, attributed by the Australian BOM to CRU. Base line data from early 20th century has been adjusted down, and the UHI is never acknowledged. From non urban stations there is no convincing evidence of significant warming since 1880. Annual temperature variations due to rainfall variation, in a continent where long droughts are endemic, are greater than any likely long term trend to warming.
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?
One word. Phlogiston. Frankly, words utterly fail me. The more we look, the more fallacies we find – and they believed him. The MSM went utterly in the tank for him.
See also: “World may not be warming, say scientists” (Times Online, today).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
The loud sound you just heard was a paradigm shift without a clutch.
There is a great disturbance in the Force, Luke.
Will someone please bring the stake and a mallet so we can slay this monster for all time.
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.
Anyone other that Prof. Jones stating what is said in the interview about no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years and the possibility of worldwide MWP would be attacked as a misinformed sceptic. Maybe he is becoming more sceptical because he can see where the ship is headed and its time to jump ship.
As a commenter observed in the Mail on Sunday:
Now he
Yet he can find data to share with his colleagues and helps write up reports for the IPCC. He probably suspects that the investigation into CRU might reveal that the dog did not eat the data (just speculating), but he’s looks ready to jump ship.
Correction:
“but he’s looks ready to jump ship.”
“but he looks ready to jump ship.”