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.
The American media has largely ignored stories about the Climategate Scandal, as most science news feed through the New York Times and the Associated Press.
Writers like Andy Revkin now face the once in a lifetime opportunity of breaking the Phil Jones U-turn story to the American newspaper reader audience. Will they seize the moment?
I don’t think it is a surprise that he said there is no warming since 1995, one of the email says “we can’t account for the lack of warming”.
First, the “hide the decline” episode is incredibly important and must be turned into a club for beating Mann et al. on a frequent and persistent basis. During a period when we did have sophisticated intrumentation to measure temperature, the so-called “proxy” failed to correlate with the physical observations, so much so that they had to stop using it and graft the earlier proxy record to the modern instrumental record. So, during the time when the most detailed data are available, the proxy is not a proxy but actually moves in the opposite direction. In the face of this observation, to claim that earlier period of proxy data are still “valid”, as Jones and his colleagues have done, is risible. Worse, it is intellectually dishonest.
Imagine a drug company testing a new treatment for arthritis. During the first year of testing, most of the patients show reduced symptoms and appear to be benefiting from the drug. Then, in the second year, the same number of patients show increased symptoms to the extent that the drug appears to be detrimental. What are the chances that such a drug would be approved? You are correct if you answered “zero”.
Secondly, just remember Eisenhower’s observation (I can’t remember verbatim, but this is fairly close): “When you are engaged in any contest, you must act as though, up to the very last second, there is still a chance to lose it. This is war, this is politics, this is anything.”
We cannot assume victory but must instead redouble our efforts. You can bet that the AGW side is getting ready for a Battle of the Bulge.
Mr. Gore, would you care to comment please… what’s that? oh… yes, you are probably right , it would be in your best interest if you remain quiet.
Looks like the Jones bus has shifted into high gear and is doing donuts on the lawn of “consensus“.
So wait a minute… if Jones admits that there isn’t enought tropic and SH paleo to establish the dgree to which the MWP was present in those regions then what the hell are we even talking about?!
And absent sufficient data, how did the MWP disappear from the paleo record of Mann, Jones, et al… he just admitted that he didn’t have enough data to counterbalance the MWP signal for the NH!
This case will be studied by statisticians for decades to come on why you don’t place all of your trust into weighting to cover missing data.
Now… let’s discuss the decades of pruning going on in the GHCN, and the over reliance on U.S. data stations and absurd weighting everywhere else, shall we?
@Mark (07:31:14) :
“Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.”
I’ve been trying to track down the Sunday Daily Mail’s references, too. The “no warming” seems to come from the BBC interview at http://tinyurl.com/y8ewylo , but the Mail also says “Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills.”
I cannot find anything from the BBC that says anything similar. Is there another interview that hasn’t been recorded in Google yet? There have been comments elsewhere that the BBC Q&A has undergone revisions since the original version and the revision deleted a rather damning quote from Jones. We don’t know why the revision, perhaps Jones told them he was misquoted, but it’s frustrating that the Jones interview reports seem to have the same fluidity as the data that Jones caretakes.
Meanwhile, I’m reading the Daily Mail as well as the BBC skeptically. The least the Mail could do is provide some links to the BBC. And the BBC should be honest when they make changes. Instead, they only tell us “Some brief answers have been slightly expanded following more information from UEA.” This sounds remarkably like the weasel words spoken by US Congressmen when they “reserve the right to revise and expand” their remarks before they are published in the official transactions of Congress.
Congratulations to Anthony, Steve McIntyre, Lord Monckton and all the other flat earth deniers of all stripes who never gave in to the abuse and kept pushing for the truth. This is truly an historic moment in this debate and you are owed great thanks for your efforts.
@Mark (07:31:14) :
“Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.”
It’s in the BBC transcript:
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Is that what you were looking for?
Richard (01:19:35) :
Phil Jones – If you tell the truth and truly repent of your sins – I forgive you.
================================================
I will too!
Everyone should get a second chance.
He could do a lot of good in straightening out all the crooked science. And he could clear his conscience.
Michael (01:30:06) :
It’s a wonder what contemplating suicide will do to bring one to their senses.
——————————————-
I read about that too. He said he wanted to stay alive for his family.
I’m wondering if he’s doing this so he can be with his family with a clear conscience. Maybe they are the important things in his life now.
I know I wouldn’t want to face this whole mess. It must be a rotten feeling to be involved in ClimateGate and be the biggest name it, to have your face on tv for it. How awful that must be! It will be a long trip out of it. But this is a big step toward that. I myself will forgive him if if comes completely clean. And I will have respect for him too for doing it!
With u-turns and the flood of alternative climate science articles since climategate broke, We are seeing the pathology of consensus science and we would do well to mark and study this psychological disorder to anticipate future epidemics. The collapse has freed up institutional scientists from the consensus straight jacket and a flood of pent-up good science is pouring forth. Surely the research for all the exciting new work had been done before last November. Likely many were in the pipeline struggling against the synod of climate consensus masters. Certainlty no small part is the freeing up of the scientific journals, which have gone thru their own subjucation (I hope scientists favour the brave journals that did publish ‘seditious’climatolgy papers during the occupation and such sycophantic journals as Nature are knocked down a few dozen rungs). One needs no more than to look at the concensus that is created under tyrannical regimes for a model where “spontaneous” demonstrations for such a govenment occur and dissent is a crime against the state.
marc (08:37:02)
For a plot of the calculated significance level of the trend for GISS at the 95% level, see
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gissrat2.jpg
The background to the calculation is here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
Jones is stating no more than the data allows. There is no U-turn by him or an admission that there has been no warming since 1995. That is the overexcited interpretation of those who can’t or won’t understand the basics of measuring a trend in noisy data.
DirkH (07:40:09) :
I was just staggered that they could spin this as they appear to have done. The assertion always was that the recent warming was unprecedented – hence the hockey stick to substantiate that.
They now say, without any sign of remorse, that it isn’t unprecedented and yet there is still an unmistakable human induced signature in the late 20th century.
It just seems bizarre.
I find it interesting that the British press has made an effort to unravel the AGW sci fi while the MSM in the US is still defending AGW. My concern now is that while the AGW is falling from favor, the new mantra for the saving the planet is,
”climate change”. Our president has formed a cabinet level bureau to act as guardians of the climate. So it doesn’t matter whether the temperature goes up on down or whether Phil Jones lied or whether Mann is reprimanded, the climate is out of control. We must find a way to control the climate before it is too late! Any example of anomalous weather will be attributed to green house gas pollution of the atmosphere, just as before every unusual event was caused by global warming. As Phil Jones was quoted, we can’t think of any other reason. After all, there is snow in 49 states and that was never happened before (in the last 100 years). As a result the carbon tax advocates will sweep anthropogenic global warming under the bus using the hockey stick and then use every unusual weather event and a slue of government grants to develop evidence that the climate is acting up again. We don’t need “no stinkin’” statistical temperature data correlations, the climate guardians know it is man made and we need your taxes to stop it!
“I’m delighted with the questions underlying this article, that BBC Roger Harrabin framed; delighted with Jones’ responses; still clear that the BBC, and even more Phil Jones, have got to drill deeper before all the gangrene is cleared in this operation.
To keep up the pressure at a tolerable level, I’d like to see here:
(a) a re-examination of the Soon and Baliunas paper that got trashed by concerted Team effort
(b) another look at Miskolczi. This recent article is excellent and readable for folk like me who still get a bit lost in the radiative physics. A great improvement on earlier material. It’s now endorsed by SPPI – Monckton is a brilliant mathematician, and has, at a guess, fully grasped Miskolczi’s maths. This is the classic proof that CO2 increase cannot warm the atmosphere, because the Earth already maintains constancy of GHG effect (done by lowering water vapour). The disproof theory is closely backed by the evidence. And NASA’s reaction described here clinches it to me.
btw, Anthony and mods, can the Tips thread be automatically archived so that only the last week shows? I cannot use this thread – always too long to bring up”
_____________
As I wrote in my Examiner.com column last week, NASA was instrumental in preventing the publication of Miskolczi’s “greenhouse-constant” theory. See more here:
NASA stops publication of Miskolczi’s research
http://bit.ly/cHYVdc
Also, Miskolczi defends his theory:
http://bit.ly/dgjBSO
K-Y? Is that an oblique suggestion the good professor may be facing jail time for his indiscretions.
Dr Jones has NOT come clean, it was not only “hide the decline” in the emails, it was also exactly how it was done and what data Mix & Match was used to get the Hockey Stick.
Summing up:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Reputable scientists can still leave the sinking ship IPCC “Titanic” and other august bodies and safely get out of harm’s way.
(Now, I’m glad Phil Jones has come forward and said what he did, but that guy has inflicted a lot of damage and I can’t see him getting off totally scot-free.)
It’s scientists who are determined to defend the undefensible and cling to the mizen mast which will see their reputation’s diminished or potentially destroyed.
Good for Henk Tennekes (and any other scientist that comes forward), his example is the best thing scientists can do for themselves and their respective disciplines.
Reputable Science must excise this AGW cancer from the body.
Not A Carbon Cow (07:03:40) :
Senator Inhofe has been emailed a summary and links to the BBC interview and Daily Mail articles. Sure hope Jones’ admissions make it into the Senate record soon, and before the EPA does anything foolish again.
Have you caught the distant and removed look in Lisa Jackson’s eyes?
It’s going to take a lot of public outcry to wake the Engineer on that runaway freight train.
See this
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Perhaps he hasn’t read his own emails lately and has forgotten what he wrote.
Speaking as a lawyer I would have advised Phil Jones to say nothing at all.
Comparing his recent pronouncements with the contents of the released emails is going to cause him some embarrassment.
[sarc]
Folks, you are forgetting that the underlying science of AGW remains unassailable.
What is revealed in the BBC interview is only peripheral to the solid “settled” science of radiative forcing and the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming.
[/sarc]