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

[Robor]

As opposed to x weather event happened, GW must be true.

I don't think I've ever heard a 'believer' say GW is true because it's hot outside. I have heard plenty of 'deniers' say the opposite though.

 

[soccerballtux]

As opposed to x weather event happened, GW must be true.

I don't think I've ever heard a 'believer' say GW is true because it's hot outside. I have heard plenty of 'deniers' say the opposite though.

I've heard them (believers) say GW is true because we're in a bad drought...except global warming means it rains more not less....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't think I've ever heard a 'believer' say GW is true because it's hot outside. I have heard plenty of 'deniers' say the opposite though.

You must be married...you have excellent selective listening skills.

 

[StageLeft]

We should brand the Deniers with a big D on their forehead or better yet cut it in blood. Only then can we move forward as a mature and sensible society. And to run for public office you have to be a Believer. This is the only way.

 

[JTsyo]

This scam will keep being pushed, but it's unraveling quickly. Why do you think it was changed to "climate change"?

Probably to signify that GLOBAL warming doesn't not mean uniform temperature increase around the world. Overall the temperature increases but local effects could vary. You might see more/stronger storms, less rain, more rain, etc.

Why higher global temperature would cause more snow

 

[sandorski]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Linked above. This article is based off the BBC article. So you can go to the original Source or insist on using the Spun story as a Source.

Fail.

 

[StageLeft]

Linked above. This article is based off the BBC article. So you can go to the original Source or insist on using the Spun story as a Source.

Fail.

So I go to the source:

Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil: Yes, but only just.

Only on P&N.

 

[dawp]

I've heard them (believers) say GW is true because we're in a bad drought...except global warming means it rains more not less....

No, it doesn't. It depends on where you're talking about. Some will get more and some will get less depending on the prevailing weather pattern.

 

[sandorski]

So I go to the source:

Only on P&N.

Ya, only on P&N does one mistake a statement for something else. The implication put on the statement does not match the reality of the statement.

 

[StageLeft]

Ya, only on P&N does one mistake a statement for something else. The implication put on the statement does not match the reality of the statement.

Speaking of spin.

 

[halik]

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

Who said you can bring logic to this thread. Global warming is a jewish scam to take over the world, just like the fed and fiat money.


For you statistically retarded people, he's saying that due to the fact there's only 14 degrees of freedom (14 samples) for what is noisy data, so the t statistic on the regression of temperature is less than 1.96.

The more I see shit like that, the more i realize that GWSCAM is a conspiracy for people that are fucking retarded (/rahm)


Edit: To reword the above, thanks for cementing my view that the whole 'GW is a scam' thing is plot to exploit the ignorant masses somehow. I wouldn't be a least bit surprised if this thing was pushed by some sort of industry group retained PR agency.

 

[sandorski]

Speaking of spin.

No spin here, just in the article based on the BBC article. Read the thread, it was covered by Dr Pizza(IIRC).

 

[yllus]

For you statistically retarded people, he's saying that due to the fact there's only 14 degrees of freedom (14 samples) for what is noisy data, so the t statistic on the regression of temperature is less than 1.96.

That's supposed to help us understand what it meant? Jesus, no wonder so many people give up and get on board with the Jewish Nazi Illuminati explanation.

 

[halik]

That's supposed to help us understand what it meant? Jesus, no wonder so many people give up and get on board with the Jewish Nazi Illuminati explanation.

Whoops, forgot to add the link that explains it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.96

Essentially you can't say with 95% confidence it's getting warmer, but you can at 90% or whatever.

 

[Munky]

Do you guys even read your own links? From the OPs article
Quote:
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.

Sure, if you cherry pick surface temperature measurements in urban locations, and start recording them in the 1970's, at the end of a cooling cycle during which the global alarmists were predicting gloom and doom from the oncoming ice age. Maybe the "experts" would like to explain why, according satellite and weather balloon measurements, the temperature in the atmosphere has not been rising by any significant level. And don't site the IPCC as a reference for Jones, because it actually works the other way around.

 

[umbrella39]

I would say MMGW is MORE than a dead issue now...

Aptly named poster of the week. Your interpretation of what you linked is in fact, very Amusing, just no where near correct.

 

[umbrella39]

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.

Do you do anything other than marginalize yourself every time you shit into these forums? FOADT