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.
Be sure to fix the names and faces of the crackpots at the heart of the AGW scam in your memory. Tell your children and grand-children about the lunacy and mayhem these crackpots caused, and how all the allegedly intelligent “world leaders” fell for this delusion and flushed enormous amounts of wealth down the drain.
MyersKL (09:58:03) :
As I wrote in my Examiner.com column last week, NASA was instrumental in preventing the publication of Miskolczi’s “greenhouse-constant” theory.
—————————————————————————-
Well that sucks. Where is the glorious NASA that put men on the moon?
MyersKL (09:58:03) :
Great, Kirk, to see you here! I enjoyed your article on Miskolczi very much. Keep up the good work!
MyersKL (09:58:03) :
This is a very nice interview. I think it would make a nice post for Anthony. I hope he considers it.
“Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine”
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Former-NASA-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine
I previously posted DCC (08:16:21) :
“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.””
The next article (above this one) at wattsupwiththat gives a different reference to a BBC posting with the same Q & A title. It’s at http://tinyurl.com/yb9h7vd and is much differently formated and appears to contain a lot more details, but still no mention of the sloppy record keeping and no mention of not answering FOI requests because he had lost the data. Where did the Mail get these details?
Unfortunately, tinyurl seems to be overloaded at the moment. That second reference is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Jones is quoted as saying he has not lost (or discarded?) any original data. “Professor Jones clarified later that when he had told me that his paper trail was insufficient he meant data trail. He insisted that he had not lost any original data, but that the sources of some of the data may have been insufficiently clear.”
So if he hasn’t lost it, where is it? The talk of his “messy office” is a diversion. If he is coming clean, he will produce all of his original data. If he doesn’t, he is just trying to minimize the damage to him of climategate.
I would not be so sure that “Ship IPCC Titanic” is going down fast. There is a lot of traction in the political domain with this issue, namely the prospect of billions in tax revenues means that the erroneous AGW claims will still be supported somehow. Probably by subverting ‘climate change catastrophe’ to ‘climate change precautions’, or just to keep IPCC going with extra funding to ‘eliminate the uncertainty’.
There is some good which has come out of this debunking of the IPCC pseudo-science, in that more people are aware of the issues and any future climate research should now be conducted with the due propriety lacking from the CRU and the other implicated centres.
However, it is not time to back off from a complete dismantling of the AGW myth. It has had the potential to become one of the world’s greatest misdirections and to have drastically reduced the living standards of billions, not to mention diverting funding from real environmental issues onto non-existent problems.
The IPCC Titanic may be holed below the waterline, and some of the crew realise the ship is sinking, but the tables are not yet sliding across the dining room floor. Keep up the critical momentum.
Once the political machine is set up and going, scientists can be discarded. I doubt this will produce any effect on the politics and Agitprop of GW.
mandolinjon (09:27:54) : ”climate change … 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.”
The flaw in trying to switch from “global warming” to “climate change” is that CO2 is argued to interfere with the radiative properties of the atmosphere. Increased CO2 can only cause warming according to this throry – any other climate impact must be a consequence of the warming.
If there is no evidence of warming, there is no evidence of “climate change”
dp (10:05:21)
Thank goodness you beat me to it!
I think the Rev. Anthony has a very wicked sense of humo(u)r
More like an indication of what he and Mann and all the Team members have been doing to the public, without lubrication, I might add.
@marc (08:37:02)
Yes, that’s what I was looking for. Thanks.
There’s an article about the U.K. Met Office’s supercomputer in today’s Daily Mail, if anyone’s interested:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1249957/The-Met-Offices-33-million-supercomputer-keeps-Britain–world–turning–Now-try-complaining-forecast.html
Is any of this getting to the EPA? How can they defend their endangerment finding now?
I expect Phil Jones has felt very stressed over the last few years as he tried to hold up the house of cards that was AGW. Confession is good for the soul and he has now confessed that the data is at best ambiguous and at worst, falsified.
I hope he now does more to help untangle the mess and find out which pieces of the science do actually hold up.
It’s not the end, but it could be the beginning of the end.
The piece in today’s Observer newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology
referred to “scientists” (pro-AGW) and “sceptics” as if the two terms are mutually exlusive. That to me was a very revealing turn of phrase and reveals how far we still have to go to get MSM away from the politics and focus on the facts.
Glenn Haldane (01:27:23) : “…Jones appears to be saying that the only reason for accepting the idea of AGW is that he can’t think of anything else….No prosecuting counsel would dare to appear in court with a case founded on such an inadequate idea – essentially, ‘the accused person must have done it because we haven’t been able to find anyone else who might have’.
“Is this really a fair summary of the AGW case?”
Yup. Sounds like Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, to me. The Warmist Willies’ favorite argument (just ahead of ad hominem.)
Gary McGuane (11:36:39) :”So if [Jones] hasn’t lost [the data], where is it? The talk of his “messy office” is a diversion. If he is coming clean, he will produce all of his original data. If he doesn’t, he is just trying to minimize the damage to him of climategate.”
He found it at home, on the floor of his dog house.
I’ve always thought the google ads to the pro-warmist sites on this site were the ultimate irony. They can’t answer any serious question and yet through google they help Mr Watts pay for this site. Ah how sweet it is.
Congrats to this site and climate audit for non-stop pushing this 8-ball up a hill with a wet spaghetti noodle all these years.
There are many who claim they would forgive Phil if he “came clean”. He has, though.
1. He tells us there has been no “statistically-significant global warming” since 1995.
2. He tells he no longer has the data to support past ‘proofs’ for AGW.
3. He tells us if the MWP was global it would disprove all current AGW hypothesises:
“if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
As far as I am aware it has been reasonably proved (see references in an earlier comment).
4. The debate is not over:
“It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”
And there is no solid reason for the AGW argument other than there is nothing else we can see that is causing this (admittedly not unprecedented) current warming trend that is not greater than previous pre-industrial warming trends:
“… what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?”
The answer:
“The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.”
And his answer to question D:
“This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. …”
So he is coming clean.
He has not changed his views, even though he has just proved them most likely ill-founded:
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions.
I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound.
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed.
I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
So he’s telling us the data and the science do not support AGW theory, but he believes in it 100%. That works for me.
I’m concerned that the missing data will miraculously (oh, and by the way, could you check his garden shed. Thats the first place i’d start looking for some leafs of inconvenient data!!! ) appear replete with favourable AGW readings. O’Bama has made Green Jobs a corner stone of his re-employment programs in the U.S. (which just increased the National Debt ceiling to @ur momisugly$14.6 Trillion). My worry is that this whole climate monitoring process is going to go ‘Big Iron’ and as it’s a matter of National Security (to have a viable economy)’, access will be provided to only a few. You just have to know how hard the yanks are kicking themselves that they left it to a dork like Jones at an amateur institution like the CRU, a principal player who is incapable of basic data house keeping (only lost some of the data-why not all of it!) and incapable of covering his tracks (leak) and incapable of ‘staying on message’. This scandal is going to damage US / UK relations for decades (who left the Kuwait invasion plans in his car which was then stolen) as it is going to bring down the back bone of O’bama’s jobsworth strategy. Do you really think they are going to let the skeptics have access to the ‘Big Iron’ data.
to Phil Jones: who said “come unto me all who a weary laden and I will give rest unto you soul?”
No statistically significant warming since 1995, but statistically significant warming going further back. Also, he says that it just missed being statistically significant, and he has the warming at .12C per decade.
BTW- Here In the U.S. the ‘Drudge’ site ( a news aggregator) has been featuring headlines from the collapse of AGW. Here is their site viewership numbers:
020,508,806 IN PAST 24 HOURS
771,872,446 IN PAST 31 DAYS
7,929,020,523 IN PAST YEAR
Catching up with WUWT site!!
The word is getting out. It just hasn’t reached the schools as my 9 year old son came home in a panic about what he was told about AGW and CO2 the other day.
Be patient. We have years and years to go. Maybe AGW will morph into AGCooling. Anything for cash!
All these elevations since the leak from CRU in November have just been dumbfounding. The house of cards keeps crumbling.
Scipio
Sorry about that its is supposed to read ‘revelations’. Hit the wrong suggestion in spell check! Doh.
Scipio
Oh he!! I give up ‘its is’ whatever. I can’t type and think at the same time.