41 replies to this topic

[Admiral Danger]

www.dailymail.co.uk said:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

Read more...

[Mattshark]

Dailyfail with misrepresentation.
It is neither a u-turn nor is it saying there has been no warming since 1995, the trend is still a rising one but not a significantly rising one hence the last decade was warmer than the one prior to it.

Quote

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.

Is the actual statement. It should also be pointed out that between 1975 and 2009 there is a significant rise. Significant results are always much less likely in a smaller data set.

[Wickian]

Jones seems to want to change his public view to that a moderate semi-AGW-proponent.  Definitely a good choice if he wants to continue with his career.

[ExpandMyMind]

www.dailymail.co.uk said:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Read more...

[Michelle]

Despite the questionable dailymail, I have to wonder what kind of evidence would it take for people to believe that the IPCC has discarded evidence, that was contrary to their goal, that it seems politics have played in their findings.

According to some people, they are the end all, be all, authority on climate change and no one else can possibly understand it, no matter what their credentials.

[Mattshark]

So, did any of you people read the actual quote, it is enough to show how bad and inaccurate the headline is.

[DieChecker]

Quote

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

From the same link as the OP.

[DigitalSentinal]

Poor Al Gore - Global warming - debunked by the very Internet you created! Oh - the irony!

Seriously, Jones' move is a calculated one for sure. During the whole Climategate affair he self quarantined himself in his home. Obviously he feels it's safe now to double back and avoid any short term repercussions - or at least try to.

So I guess it's a given that Cap and Trade won't go through - especially with most of the northeastern coast being under a foot of snow.

[jbondo]

DigitalSentinal, on 15 February 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

So I guess it's a given that Cap and Trade won't go through - especially with most of the northeastern coast being under a foot of snow.

Although I support neither side of this debate I can say with certainty that a warmer winter will produce more snow. As long as the temp sits between 20 F and 32 F you will get snow more readily than if the temp were sitting in the teens or single digits. So GW would result in more snow for awhile at least. Once the winters get mild enough to hover above freezing you will get rain instead.

[Mattshark]

DieChecker, on 15 February 2010 - 04:30 PM, said:

From the same link as the OP.

Actually what he actually said was (question in bold)

Quote

DDo 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.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Please read the interview not some rags quote mining of it.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8511670.stm

[stevewinn]

Matt is that the same BBC whose impartiality went out the window when the head of the BBC met with these east Anglia "experts" and once the meeting was finished they (the BBC) announced, global warming was proven beyond doubt and that BBC coverage no longer had to give equal amounts of air time to the debate when it comes to global warming.

less than 24 hours after this announcement Newsnight devoted 20 minutes to the proponents of global warming and just 5 minutes to the Opponents of Global warming.

why should we take any notice of the QandA session you have posted the BBC's colours are firmly nailed to the mast.

[ExpandMyMind]

and here comes the next climate-gate...


UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings
Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.

http://www.telegraph...-buildings.html

matt, do you remember, maybe 2-3 weeks ago, i told you that the can of worms had just been opened, and that there were far more than the IPCC fiddling facts and statistics? do you remember what i told you about weather stations?

goodbye climate change, here's the next global panic tool...

http://www.independe...is-1645358.html

[Mattshark]

stevewinn, on 15 February 2010 - 07:15 PM, said:

Matt is that the same BBC whose impartiality went out the window when the head of the BBC met with these east Anglia "experts" and once the meeting was finished they (the BBC) announced, global warming was proven beyond doubt and that BBC coverage no longer had to give equal amounts of air time to the debate when it comes to global warming.

less than 24 hours after this announcement Newsnight devoted 20 minutes to the proponents of global warming and just 5 minutes to the Opponents of Global warming.

why should we take any notice of the QandA session you have posted the BBC's colours are firmly nailed to the mast.

I think you have misunderstood a little here Steve, it is the transcript of the meeting that is being used to quote mine for bad journalism, that is why, the BBC QandA is the original source material. They are deliberately misquoting that interview. It makes no difference whether you argee with what was said. It is patently obvious though that the Mail has been academically fraudulent.

expandmymind, on 15 February 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

and here comes the next climate-gate...


UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings
Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.

http://www.telegraph...-buildings.html

matt, do you remember, maybe 2-3 weeks ago, i told you that the can of worms had just been opened, and that there were far more than the IPCC fiddling facts and statistics? do you remember what i told you about weather stations?

goodbye climate change, here's the next global panic tool...

http://www.independe...is-1645358.html

Not really, you are just looking at the politics and not the science. Sat readings show warming trend too.
As do Anthony Watts weather stations that he thinks are good (as shown by NASA) which Mr Watts likes not to advertise.
Sorry, expand, but in science, there is still consensus.

Edited by Mattshark, 15 February 2010 - 08:39 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Matt. I have one question regarding the satalite temperature readings.

Surely as the cities and urban areas around the world expand this will increase the localized warming in that area. And when working out the average global temperature you have to include these areas. Hence the average global temperature will increase gradually (when measured from space) and local temperatures will have dramatic increases.

As we know, the rate of temperature increase is approximately 0.12oC per decade.  Would the increase in urbanization, especially in third world countries, account for this very slight temperature increase?  I would assume that this is the case.

[Mattshark]

Professor GlenBoy, on 15 February 2010 - 09:28 PM, said:

Matt. I have one question regarding the satalite temperature readings.

Surely as the cities and urban areas around the world expand this will increase the localized warming in that area. And when working out the average global temperature you have to include these areas. Hence the average global temperature will increase gradually (when measured from space) and local temperatures will have dramatic increases.

As we know, the rate of temperature increase is approximately 0.12oC per decade.  Would the increase in urbanization, especially in third world countries, account for this very slight temperature increase?  I would assume that this is the case.

I don't personally think it would, the temperatures in those regions tend not to vary as much. But I will have a look around and see if I can find anything.