Phil Jones, ex-head of CRU admits no global warming for last 15 years.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
I would say MMGW is MORE than a dead issue now. This is the second bombshell in one day and should be the end of the MMGW scam. Anyone still clinging to this is nothing more than an eco-religionist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

In short: The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Jones's latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU's data.

In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period "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."

Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since the e-mails emerged -- and were subsequently posted online at www.EastAngliaEmails.com -- Jones has stepped down from his position, been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide.

Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
 
Last edited:

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
popcorn-chair.gif
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
This scam will keep being pushed, but it's unraveling quickly. Why do you think it was changed to "climate change"?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
so does this mean I get to use up all the natural resources I can?

A giant game of hungry hungry hippos?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Darn, I thought we were all gonna die. Now I've got to start saving for my kid's college fund again.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
That article, which is probably from the Daily News or Fox News, purposefully truncates Phil Jones' statement, stripping away everything he said other than what the AGW crowd wants to read. He actually said that it was borderline to significance at the 95% mark.

"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."

- wolf
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Do you guys even read your own links? From the OPs article
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
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.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
lmao. Amused - the picture you've chosen seems appropriate. Apparently you didn't read the article? Or apparently you don't understand statistics? I'm going to grossly over-simplify this for people, but what he basically said is that all the evidence shows with 90% or better certainty that the climate has continued to warm. That means, there's less than a 10% chance that it didn't. Your claim that his statement means the climate hasn't warmed is... absurd.

Basically, your argument boils down to this:
"statistically, we're more than 90% certain the climate warmed"
"Are you 95% certain?"
"Not quite; very close to 95% though."
"Ah HA! This proves MMGW is fake! HEY EVERYONE! HE'S NOT 95% CERTAIN!"

Read that again - that's the argument YOU are making.
"A
 
Last edited:

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,284
138
106
lmao. Amused - the picture you've chosen seems appropriate. Apparently you didn't read the article? Or apparently you don't understand statistics? I'm going to grossly over-simplify this for people, but what he basically said is that all the evidence shows with 90% or better certainty that the climate has continued to warm. That means, there's less than a 10% chance that it didn't. Your claim that his statement means the climate hasn't warmed is... absurd.

Basically, your argument boils down to this:
"statistically, we're more than 90% certain the climate warmed"
"Are you 95% certain?"
"Not quite; very close to 95% though."
"Ah HA! This proves MMGW is fake! HEY EVERYONE! HE'S NOT 95% CERTAIN!"

Read that again - that's the argument YOU are making.
"A
:) It is still scientifically and statistically dishonest. Choosing an alpha level after the research is conducted is just bad juu-juu, it means you are trying to prove something rather then discover it.

I kind of want to see how the data plots now. One study that comes to mind is a childhood lead exposure. If you look at the data used to ban lead from everything, you might be a little shocked, the link isn't as strong as one might think. (Think of a shotgun applied to a graph of behavioral vs ppm lead exposure and viola, you have the lead exposure data.)

hopefully, this conflict will inspire a little more research into the subject rather then the blind faith that both sides have been extolling.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
This scam will keep being pushed, but it's unraveling quickly. Why do you think it was changed to "climate change"?

07 do you believe every big lie if told to you enough times? The article does not support the OP.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
lmao. Amused - the picture you've chosen seems appropriate. Apparently you didn't read the article? Or apparently you don't understand statistics? I'm going to grossly over-simplify this for people, but what he basically said is that all the evidence shows with 90% or better certainty that the climate has continued to warm. That means, there's less than a 10% chance that it didn't. Your claim that his statement means the climate hasn't warmed is... absurd.

Basically, your argument boils down to this:
"statistically, we're more than 90% certain the climate warmed"
"Are you 95% certain?"
"Not quite; very close to 95% though."
"Ah HA! This proves MMGW is fake! HEY EVERYONE! HE'S NOT 95% CERTAIN!"

Read that again - that's the argument YOU are making.
"A

Yup, that is exactly what the OP is saying here. The idea here is to pray on people's limited understanding of statistics to create a false impression.

Another point of note: when Jones says that it is harder to achieve statistical significance - which is a term of art here that he is using to explain a 95% confidence level - in short term data than long term data, he is basically saying that we are right on the cusp of hitting the 95% confidence level if the trend data continues into the very near future. In other words, the same data manifested over 16 or 17 years will reach the 95% threshold.

Yeah, MMGW is "dead" over this.

And in another thread, he's saying MMGW is dead because a climatologist who has been a skeptic for years is...still a skeptic.

Honestly, I rarely participate in GW threads on this board because the intelligence level manifested on this particular issue is below even the average for this board across a range of issues. And that is saying quite a lot.

- wolf
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
But it snowed really bad this past week! GW must be a hoax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Warm and rainy NorhtWest of me(Vancouver), snowed three foot deep SouthEast of me (Washington DC) had a dusting of snow this morning after three days of beautiful SUNSHINE. GW is so good to me, thank you GW.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Do you guys even read your own links? From the OPs article

Yeah, I'm sorry, but this thread is just moronic.

But it does prove something that I've believed to be true about the climate change debate for quite a while. A lot of people involved (on both sides, although this particular case it is people who reject the idea of MMGW) absolutely couldn't care less about the science, or the facts, all they care about is that the point of view they support "wins".

I mean look at the comments in this thread already. Are those the kind of objective comments you'd expect to see from people who are just glad the facts won out? I don't think so...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Yup, that is exactly what the OP is saying here. The idea here is to pray on people's limited understanding of statistics to create a false impression.

Another point of note: when Jones says that it is harder to achieve statistical significance - which is a term of art here that he is using to explain a 95% confidence level - in short term data than long term data, he is basically saying that we are right on the cusp of hitting the 95% confidence level if the trend data continues into the very near future. In other words, the same data manifested over 16 or 17 years will reach the 95% threshold.

Yeah, MMGW is "dead" over this.

And in another thread, he's saying MMGW is dead because a climatologist who has been a skeptic for years is...still a skeptic.

Honestly, I rarely participate in GW threads on this board because the intelligence level manifested on this particular issue is below even the average for this board across a range of issues. And that is saying quite a lot.

- wolf

This is what happens when people who aren't scientists try to use science, particularly so when they are trying to use science to "prove" a point of view they hold for reasons having very little to do with science.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,969
140
106
Do you guys even read your own links? From the OPs article



Phil Jones is the eco-KOOK that uses data from temp sensors mounted near HVAC exhausts and asphalt parking lots. And if that doesn't work he just pencil whips the data.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I award this thread 'finalist' in the 2010 most misleading subject of the year contest.

Thread subject: Phil Jones, ex-head of CRU admits no global warming for last 15 years.

From the OP link, Phil Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed."

It's the only nominee so far.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Phil Jones is the eco-KOOK that uses data from temp sensors mounted near HVAC exhausts and asphalt parking lots. And if that doesn't work he just pencil whips the data.

And he's still got far more credibility than a keyboard climatologist wannabe like you.