Tuesday
Feb162010
SHOCK From Phil Jones: There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995 (Links Fest -- 9 Articles)
Climategate U-turn as Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
--
Climate Change Skeptics Emerging From Academia
--
The professor’s amazing climate change retreat
--
As ‘Global Warming’ Hoax Dies, MSM is AWOL: Is Anybody Home?
--
The Continuing Climate Meltdown WSJ
--
Is the Great ‘Global Warming’ Snowjob Finally Coming to an End?
--
The red-hot scam unravels (Wesley Pruden)
--
--
Al Gore, Call Your Agent: It Really May Be Time to Give Back That Oscar
Feb 16, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Reader Comments (60)
Media’s ‘Consistent With’ Mantra Consistent With Widespread MSM Panic
It used to be a lot easier for people in power like Al Gore to control peoples opinions.
What motivates the scientists who advocate that human activity is having an influence on the global climate? For what purpose and to what end? They must be large in number. Who are they? Who leads them? What is their objective?
Curious,
Robert
Personally, I'd love to tell the power and gas companies to go fuck themselves but until we come through with the solar and battery breakthroughs (research that is seriously underfunded) we need, we're stuck with giving money to people and corporations that will use that money to keep us poor and thus, under their control.
Without going through all the research and explaining in minute detail about how the articles DB posted are wrong in every single instance, let me say this- The headline "There has been no global warming since 1995" cherry picked from something Professor Phil Jones said which leads the Glenn Becks of the world to conclude that global warming is phony. Here's the un-cherry picked version when asked directly about global warming.
[BBC:] How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
[JONES:] 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.
What's the matter with people? Is that not clear enough for you? How do you expect anyone to believe that the Fed, the corporations and the government are in cahoots to steal your money when you can't even comprehend what the people involved in your cherry picking, science denialism are actually saying? I know this is harsh but seriously, WTF?
It breaks my heart to see decent people buy into Global Warming Denial Conspiracies and fossil fuel propaganda. Truly, it does.
The time period for which we have actual temperature readings (i.e. not proxies) is statistically meaningless. The only way to even *try* to contextualize the last 150 years or so is to use proxies like tree rings, ice core samples, etc. In other words, yes, Glenn Beck will seize on the comments about warming since 1995, but even if we go back to 1895 we're still talking about a tiny set of data points. Even then, you have problems with data collection and sampling from different time periods. Moreover, the cherry-picking of tree ring data from Siberia (was this Jones or Mann? I don't remember), to name just one example, is borderline fraudulent.
TALK ABOUT DIVIDE & CONQUER!
I really don't think that a nation that is CURRENTLY BEING HIJACKED BY ITS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS should have the time or inclination to pursue such BULLSHIT. HELLO! Your UNEMPLOYMENT rates are (in REAL numbers) OVER 20% nationwide, your Congress is SELLING YOU OUT CONTINUOUSLY, your president OPENLY LIES TO YOU, FRAUD and GREED are REWARDED while ACCOUNTABILITY, RULE OF LAW and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE WITHERING AWAY TO NOTHINGNESS!
And YET you people have time to argue about what MIGHT happen with world temperatures while Goldman Sachs IS raping you all anally FOR SURE.
RIGHT *NOW*.
Something Polish,
This is the wrong question: What would have to happen for global warming denialists to admit that the earth is indeed warming?
Maybe you're just using shorthand here, but surely you realize the question isn't one of "Are we warming or are we not?"
If you're asking what it would take for skeptics to believe the party line on AGW, then for this skeptic you'd have to build a time machine, take some thermometers with you and then teach a bunch of cotton-headed "climate scientists" how to do basic statistics. That would be a start.
"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record..."
That's from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html
Even Phil Jones admits there are many unanswered (maybe unanswerable) questions about the MWP, for instance. What?! These jerks have been claiming that the MWP is just a fiction made up by "denialists" and now he admits what is obvious to any objective observer? Anyhow, if we can't even be sure about temperatures from 800 years ago, then how can mere decades or even two centuries tell us anything about long-term trends?
This isn't about denying the claims of science. It's about actually understanding science and its limitations.
Climate Change = Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns
Do you really believe that all skeptics are just slack-jawed "denialists"? C'mon. I double majored in applied math in college. I tutored the pre-meds in physics and took courses in cosmology and astrophysics just for fun. That doesnn't mean I know very much about "climate science" -- obviously -- but I'm not "anti-science" or whatever, either. I can also sometimes tell when these "climate scientists" make claims that their data can't even statistically support -- not without cockamamie models that can do whatever the heck you want them to do, depending on how you construct them.
Also, just because oil companies are behind some of the global warming skepticism doesn't mean you have to have a knee-jerk reaction and assume that the opposite of what they say is true. I remember that there were a bunch of socialist, left-wing loonies saying Iraq was about "blood for oil" or whatnot, but that doesn't mean Iraq had nuclear weapons. Similarly, just because some idiot is saying Obama is Hitler doesn't mean that the Tea Party people are wrong about runaway spending, bank bailouts, etc. And just because Brad DeLong has a PhD in economics doesn't mean that mainstream macro isn't a total shambles. It just doesn't shake out like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0&feature=related
Is there anyone who is in favour of pollution?
Shouldn't we be trying to devise a rational, PRAGMATIC approach to minimizing our pollution whether we can prove global warming or not?
James H:
OK. I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match in blog comments (I'd rather watch ice dancing), but my question remains: What would have to happen for you to admit that the earth is warming?
Virtually all glaciers worldwide are rapidly shrinking. The Northwest Passage is now a reality. Permafrost is disappearing in higher latitudes. This past January was the warmest on record. Trees bloom earlier. And what have you. These events are well documented.
The glaciers of Glacier National Park are predicted to be gone by 2030. Would that sway you? That's just one place. How about glaciers in Bolivia?
The Northeast Passage as a regular shipping route? Would that do anything?
How much surface permafrost would have to disappear from Alaska?
Cherry blossoms arrive a week earlier than 30 years ago according to the Smithsonian Institute. Would another week do it?
I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't pretend to be one, but them's the facts. And these are just a smattering of examples I'm sure you've heard before. Lots of things are predicted by predominant Global Warming scientists. What would have to happen for you to believe that the earth is warming?
No, I was making a generalization (nor do I believe all the tea baggers are morons, just every single one I've seen on the TeeVee) and yes, they are qualified people that have arguments that need to be debated and peer reviewed. I think we can both agree that's how science works (an observation leads to a theory and then that theory is hammered on relentlessly looking for everything that might validate or invalidate it until a reasonable probability is reached)
re: "You guys must know a lot about sun spots. Care to share your knowledge... "
Glad to. How many hours you got?
re:"Shouldn't we be trying to devise a rational, PRAGMATIC approach to minimizing our pollution whether we can prove global warming or not? "
Couldn't agree more.
James- you may find this discussion about Kuhn interesting. "Popper’s or Kuhn’s accounts of science bear little resemblance to actual science (and indeed if taken seriously I think both accounts would stop science dead in its tracks)" http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/crisis-what-crisis-kuhn-and-the-fabrication-of-history/
re:"And YET you people have time to argue about what MIGHT happen with world temperatures while Goldman Sachs IS raping you all anally FOR SURE."
Uhhh...you do know I'm the webmaster at goldmansachs666.com, right?
A thousand pardons I bessech thee NOBLE SIRE, as I failed to see thine elegant robes of majestic purple and sparkling crown of gold & precious pearls.
In other words; NO, I DIDN'T know that you're the webmaster over at goldmansachs666.com NOR DOES IT MATTER because I never addressed YOU specifically. I was addressing the issue of how everyone is LOST here arguing about climate change while FAILING to focus on the need for POLITICAL change.
Uhhh .. you DO know the world does NOT revolve around YOU?
;-) Keep up the good fight.
And for this laugh:
re:"And YET you people have time to argue about what MIGHT happen with world temperatures while Goldman Sachs IS raping you all anally FOR SURE."
Uhhh...you do know I'm the webmaster at goldmansachs666.com, right?
Then I actually looked into it. Just out curiosity. And I know this sounds stupid, but I never before even considered how we know temperatures from hundreds or thousands of years ago. Just never thought about it. It also never occurred to me that the doomsday scenarios were deduced by tacking c. 150 years of temp readings onto hundreds of years of proxy data, the accuracy and reliability of which is extremely problematic, and feeding it into a computer model. There's nothing wrong with doing this per se, but pretending you can predict the future from these models with any certainty is foolhardy.
Believe me, I absolutely hate that this has become a left-right issue like so many others, but it has. It needn't be.
BTW, the science on the so-called greenhouse effect suggests with good certainty that GW is *to some degree* affected by C02, yet the global warming believers are out there building historical models. If the science on the greenhouse effect were good enough to prove that GW is almost entirely man-made we wouldn't need those historical models to show us the same thing.
Please remember (since this somehow comes down to personal character flaws for many of you), I'm pretty much a plumb-line libertarian and yet I was willing to accept that only some kind of govt coercion would be able to "stop global warming." I didn't like that, but I was willing to accept it as insurmountable fact. Then, like i said, I happened to look into the arguments for AGW. Until about a year ago -- before all the "climategate" stuff -- I believed like most people that AGW was a serious problem that would have to be dealt with.
But who made it a left-right issue? On one side, we have national science academies of every industrial nation (no scientific body of international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion, although some are noncommittal). On the other, we have Sarah Palin ("Global Warming is snake oil science"), Sean Hannity, and now Donald Trump, and a cadre of similar buffoons. The latest talking point is that Phil Jones claims that there has been no Global Warming since 1995 (see this very thread), when the exact opposite is the case. William Kristol, who is wrong about everything, repeats another talking point du jour: "why do you think they call it Greenland?" Really. That's the talking point.
Again, I do not pretend to be a climate scientist. Perhaps you understand the science behind tree ring analysis and ice core sampling. I freely admit that I do not and that I am placing my faith in the vast, vast, huge majority of the peer reviewed, internationally respected scientific community, the mounting empirical record and reporting from sources I respect (e.g., Elizabeth Kolbert amongst others), and my own eyes. For similar reasons, I also endorse biological evolution and Copernican heliocentrism (contrary to many of the same famous Global Warming deniers). If that makes it a left-right issue, then so be it. But I'm not the one who coined the phrase "reality based" as a slur.
-------------------------------------------
peer review -- as an academic, it sounds to me like peer review has been shot to hell in some cases; it's shocking, if not surprising, that these guys actually wrote emails about how they planned to blackball certain viewpoints; simply amazing -- and I don't think we really see the real damage from this, yet. It's more than just Glenn Beck. That's why real schools, like Penn State, are actually looking into things -- they know they're toast if peer review is shown for a fraud.
respected scientific community -- see "peer review"
mounting empirical record -- empirical records, mountainous or otherwise, don't prove anything without theory; even the merest facts are "always already" theorized
endorse biological evolution and Copernican heliocentrism -- these don't need endorsing; creationism is worse than speculative (not a fair comparison); Copernicus really proves my take on this, doesn't he?
As for the left-right issue, I didn't mean to accuse you personally of making it so. I'm just sayig that it is one and your remarks earlier sort of suggested that it was only 'right-wing' people who were skeptics (probably some truth in that). But none of us who congregate here really want to play those games. And (except for gobias) I usually assume others aren't playing that game, either.
Look, the fact that the two or four of us are having a good-faith argument about AGW suggest to me that there is no open-and-shut case here. Notice we're not arguing about creationism or the center of the solar system. Gravity? Nope. Now, maybe AGW is real and significant and worth stopping and even critical to our survival. I don't see that evidence or those arguments. That's because the GW folks haven't put them forth. If they had really strong cases, many of the skeptics would be the first to admit it. Not Bill Kristol, surely, but real skeptics would.
BTW, i'm a card-carrying, lifetime member of the reality-based community. I hate those imperialist bastards as much as you do.
---------------
I haven't read everything you or others have written...but this part is one of my complaints, SP...it's required DOGMA...it's abundantly clear that you MUST hold these beliefs or you get no funding...so it means nothing to me that science academies push the nonsense...if you really want to have some fun...go back and read how the movement got started after the berlin wall fell and european communists were suddenly left without a party to support...and boom, the modern global warming movement was born...
nutshelled, it's propaganda more than science...
it's not a left-right issue to me at all...it's a truth issue...and as the evidence is exposed it becomes clear that the entire body of research is bullshit...these so called scientists manipulated everything to get the outcome that was planned in advance...i'll admit to having read hundreds of stories on this and following both skeptical and non-skeptical blogs on warming for almost 5 years now...so i'm trying to generalize...
as just one example, examine the ipcc report from 2007 that raj pachauri put together...it's a laughing stock now but 2 years ago it won some people a nobel prize...a nobel prize...astonishing...now, every conclusion from the report is suspect...
i hate corruption more than anything and the entire field of climate science is corrupt...watch this short clip, where the head of greenpeace admits to lies and exaggeration...
http://www.businessinsider.com/greenpeaces-director-is-busted-for-lying-about-the-effects-of-global-warming-2009-8
then read about how they collect temp data...and how data that does not conform is excluded...it's shoddy science...again, i'm generalizing, but now that the truth is out if you examine how temp data was collected for the ipcc report, you will get sick to your stomach...complete cherry-picking with exclusion of data (and entire weather stations)...
and here's the last component for me, the kicker if you will...what is the solution according to al gore...carbon offsets...are you fucking kidding me...?...carbon offsets are a complete scam and the world's largest investment banks are prepared to dominate these markets...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
it sucks from top to bottom....
read this...from an environmentalist at the univ of vermont......
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20heinrich.html
[BBC:] E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
[JONES:] 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.
Denial....yeah right.
-------------
Thank you....feel exactly the same...it was a dead giveaway from the start...any group attempting to stifle debate so vigorously HAD to be hiding something...consensus my ass...
i love the earth and i hate polluters...i also hate liars...phil jones and michael mann and raj pachauri are all big FAT, SPONSORED, INDOCTRINATED BASTARD LIARS...and so I expose them...you know i'm sure that pachauri is not even a climate scientist...
i believe in punishing polluters...but carbon offsets are a joke...there are other ways...
The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:
- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/
Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
Lord Christopher Monckton part 2 with Jones...
"I haven't read everything you or others have written...but this part is one of my complaints, SP...it's required DOGMA...it's abundantly clear that you MUST hold these beliefs or you get no funding...so it means nothing to me that science academies push the nonsense..."
I'm not convinced that one must hold the Global Warming beliefs to be self-evident to require funding (can't say that I really know since I'm out of that loop), but it is required dogma for biologists to believe in evolution or astrophysicists to buy into Copernican heliocentism. Is there no money, anywhere, to support scientific inquiry which would disprove Global Warming (through a rigorous scientific process)? Are Global Warming researchers eating caviar off of $1000 a night hookers with their bogus research grants?
"it's not a left-right issue to me at all...it's a truth issue...and as the evidence is exposed it becomes clear that the entire body of research is bullshit...these so called scientists manipulated everything to get the outcome that was planned in advance..."
Are all of the universities and scientific associations, worldwide, really in league to keep the Denialists down? That's quite a conspiracy. Have you seen the list of associations which endorses Global Warming? It is quite extensive.
The Greenpeace video is not especially damning (did he really say that the poles and Greenland would be gone by 2030?) since, you know, it's Greenpeace and not, say, a representative from the Max Planck Institute. (Virtually speaking of Greenland, I can't help but note that while extensive relevant data has been collected from that island, it's dropped off a bit the last few years since one research station was demolished due to ice melting much faster than anticipated. Elizabeth Kolbert discussed this in her excellent reporting for the New Yorker, which, I also can't help noting, is not a Rupert Murdoch publication.)
"and here's the last component for me, the kicker if you will...what is the solution according to al gore...carbon offsets...are you fucking kidding me...?...carbon offsets are a complete scam and the world's largest investment banks are prepared to dominate these markets..."
Is Gore gung ho for carbon offsets? I wasn't aware of that. If so, I would assume that's because of political expediency. He was an early supporter of a BTU tax, but that's politically impossible (you do what you gots to do). More to the point, unless Al Gore is some sort of evil genius fronting a massive conspiracy which would make faked moon landings* look like Piltdown Man, how would his support for carbon offsets make the earth any warmer or cooler? You might as well claim that climate researchers are dominated by communists. It may be true (?), but hardly relevant.
Lastly, you may wish to emend this post. Phil Jones did not say that there hasn't' been Global Warming since 1995, only that's it's not statistically significant (one presumes because of too short of a time series sample). As RobertM pointed out above, Mr. Jones, in the very same interview, said, "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." I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.
Wait, now lastly. Thus far, I've only referred to Global Warming (GW) and not Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), though I do subscribe to the latter (placing my trust in scientists). Is the earth getting warmer? As with biological evolution and Copernican heliocentrism, there's a shitload of evidence to suggest it is. And this is where it's a left-right issue. The right wing braintrust claims it's not happening (because it snowed in DC, Al Gore is fat, and, uh, it's just not). But this is also where Global Warming Denialism parallels the Iraq War Invasion and George Bush Jr. regressive tax cuts: the story keeps changing. We've moved from "It's not getting any warmer" to "OK, it's getting warmer, but not because of man" and now back to "it's not getting any warmer." This is troubling.
Don't go breakin' my heart.
*Note: I don't believe the moon landings were faked. I'm just making a point.
What motivates the scientists who advocate that human activity is having an influence on the global climate? For what purpose and to what end? They must be large in number. Who are they? Who leads them? What is their objective?
Curious,
Robert "
It is all about Agenda 21, spend some time on researching this.
If you want to talk about real global risk however.......
Anybody out there concerned about things like genetically engineered corn that can't be regrown from its own harvest.....
Growing up, the thing I remeber most about Labor Day was bees swarming around soda cans....don't see too many bees anymore. Dunno how pressing an issue climate change is, but if the bees go, we're gone, and it won't take decades either.
When the climate change doods stop asking for grants and start setting up farms near the artic circle, I'll start worrying.
And hey! webmaster Robert, you might want to actually read some of the stuff you webmaster......
http://fedupusa.org/2010/02/16/goldman-sachs-bets-on-global-warming-more-like-pushes-the-agenda-for-a-2-trillion-stake/
That is to protect the seed companies right to exploit profits, and if it fails we are done...
Hybridization is a defience against the natural order.
The Franklin Institute stopped publishing data in 2001......wierd, huh?
I mean if this is such a big concern, you'd think they'd want to keep the data current, right? Or maybe the "scientists" are afraid that data would set off a wave of panic.....
Anyway, if someone can find the data for Philly 2002-present, I'll be happy to crunch the numbers and report back to you.
Oh and in case you "Warmies" don't remember 2008-09 was the coldest winter in 100 years in China.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204
I love it when you clowns explain how record-breaking low temperatures "prove" global warming, so please do that mindfreak for me, I could use a few good laughs.
http://www.fi.edu/weather/data2/images/wthrmean.jpg