Phil Jones: Global Warming Data "Unorganized," No Warming Since 1995

Easy there Big D. People have been brainwashed for 20 years with a constant bombardment of political and media fearmongering over this ****. It's hard for some to let go after so long. It can take alot more gut-punches to take down some peoples beliefs.

And while the following author didn't even scratch the surface on these scandalous topics, this is still a good 19 punch combination:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html


I'm still wondering how much punishment a warmanista can take. How many deceptions over the years are acceptable before they start questioning themselves? How many embarrassments can one endure? How many times can one be lied to before they at least start raising an eyebrow? Raise it at least a teeny weeny bit?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know.

 

Well, this should brighten your day. It cracked me the hell up.

This is an actual question and answer from a recent interview with IPCC President Rajendra Pachauri (bold emphisis mine):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/quote-of-the-week-5/#more-16436

Indeed.

 

link

The bbc interview they are quoting:

Key word being statistical significance as if you look at the data presented there is in fact an increase.

To get some perspective on statistical significance:

a definition:

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

 

in the last decade yes, previous no which is what he is stating..... The last decade is attributed to less sun surface activity as well as there is a new theory about ocean currents which could have had a huge impact on both decades. if you read what he says he is saying there is not a large enough change to say it is in fact a statistical sifnificance. That is what I am alluding to.

 

Another new theory?

Anywho, let's assume that temps have not risen due to a lack of sunspot activity, that simply adds credence to the fact the core of Global Warming, computer modeling, is so flawed as to be worthless.

Computer models as of yet cannot accurately predict such factors, and if they cannot then who would seriously put forward that they should be the basis for a drastic retooling of the global economy based on no other reason than an agenda and not science?

 

yes but the cooling trend started because of less sun surface activity.
as to the hockey stick graph i am nto sure what it does and does not include, what I can tell you is your quote is inaccurate.

 

soooooooooooo you have a problem with scientists making new theories? We should have just stuck with the earth as the center of the universe then?
Computer models are like anything else, they are built on what we know. Computer models are not just used in global warming, so attacking computer models as a whole is just inane.

 

Sooooooooo every idea that labels itself as a theory demands fast action or the world will turn into a desert?

Show me their inherent accuracy, and it should be added accuracy that demands massive worldwide actions or the climate is doomed.

That is the claim that was/is/has been made, back it up.

 

global warming isn't a new idea. bad example. And desertfication doesn't just have to do with global warming.

No the claim that has been made is that if you are going to make a stink about computer models, you should look into the many purposes they serve rather then grouping them all together. If you want to make a stink about them not having certain factors so be it, however, in my experience most of the factors being *****ed about have been/are being factored in. Dust, water vapors, etc. The question now that the science will have to give is how much each has an effect on the earth. A question of percentages.

 

We were discussing yet another new theory were we not?

And Desides OP hit the nail on the head, the models predicted desertfication in Africa due to Global Warming a claim that was shown to be absolutely bogus.

When a model is shown to faulty it is not exactly optimal to then continue onwards as if it were, in fact, accurate. The whole of Global Warming is based on computer modeling that you, yourself, acknowledged that it cannot factor in enough variables to be accurate.

A Theory can reach a point where it is discarded, Global Warming that is man caused stands on the precipice of being shunted off into the discards pile.

I mean come on, a Theory without evidence certainly does not deserve credence and unless evidence is found it is merely a idea and nothing more.

 

is it negligible or not is the debate, of which if you take the evidence that show it is not negligible then there is far more evidence it is not.

no your description is a quote which states that there is no significance. This is inaccurate, as I have shown, as what was stated is there is no statistical significance, but that is defined differently then how you and I would describe significance mathmatically. So yes I can comment on it as you are wrong in stating it as such.

 

No I brought up another possible explanation. Again global warming is not a new theory as a whole, again the debate is how much of an impact do humans have. There is no debating if we have an impact, the question is how much do other variables play vs humanity. And again desertfication is not just a side effect of global warming. It also has to do with uprooting forests.

No I stated many of the variables that people argue about are already factored in. In fact people mislead others by stating they are not. Is it possible there are other factors, sure. But the science is finding those other variables, which they are, and not completely discarding the theory as a whole, parts of which are based on things other then computer models. The fact you wish to do so shows you bias and a need to discard global warming by finding any small inane reason to do so.

Only by those who discard the mountains of evidence that says it is based on conspiracy theories, and a few bad scientists.

There is evidence, but if you wish to base all the evidence on computer models, which again have been used in other fields, then by all means do so.

 

i think this global warming hoax is over now just like the 70s ice age scare. Congrats to all who didnt fall for the junk science. of course give it ten years and some new crisis will emerge. Too much money in scaring people

 

A Global impact?

Yes, there is a debate as there should be, that is a priori argument that assumes facts that have yet to be presented.

Which is a neat trick seeing as the archivist of the statistics that the warming models are based on...has nothing to back up his numbers..tell me how one builds a accurate model based on fabricated numbers?

I've heard of foresenic accounting, never heard of making it up as one goes along..

A "few bad scientists"?

Jones was supposed to keep the raw numbers the models are based on..and they do not exist...gone...nowhere to be found, did you read his explanation at the top of the page?

Corrupted data is exactly that, corrupted and quite useless for anything other than filling countless grant applications..

 

there was evidence before them, there will be evidence after them. The original data is satelite data, not sure how they destroyed that. There is also electromagnetic date, etc. What they are asking for is the original data sets since the way the interpolate the data is known, so they can trace back.

Again till a decade ago when the suns surface activity slowed down there was an increase. There is no getting around that, if you read the link I produced you will see the increase, and him admitting within the last decade there has been a drop, but that to is not statistically significant. Again you are trying to take that phrase and run with it to suit your need as are the bloggers latching on to it. That is what started this debate.

Not sure how you think we'll continue to raise food if the climate is adjusting to a change we created in a chaotic system. Ironic indeed.

Says you. And for the last time there is tons of evidence that says we have an effect on the environment. Again the debate is how much, not do we, and if we are in the mist. Again the last decade before 2000 showed signs of warming.

 

Again says you.

No they cited it as a major factor, large enough to change our climate by a simple degree.

Volcanic eruptions have been cited as causing the development of our atmosphere in other theories, yes causing warming.So bad example.

improperly by different means satelite, and land centers. Electromagnetic readings to show more radiation hits the earth thanks to pollutants we create? How so?
You should re read that one tree quote and think about how you are trying to debunk this theory.

 

I see your Scandinaviagate, and up you one Hurricanegate!

Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

Remember, this and the soon to be scrutinized sea level data, is the reason we are supposed to be giving billions of our taxpayer dollars to island and other third world nations.

AGW has become a complete train wreck. To think otherwise means one is hanging off a cliff by their fingernails.

 

So we should go ahead and burn more coal?

 

Sure....however it should be used far more efficiently than it is currently being used, keep in mind Lab waste byproducts are unulitilized assets, it is in every companies interest to use them as completely as possible.

 

in a somewhat ironic way, the drafting of a cap and trade system is likely what has exposed this stuff.

the pressure to 'tow the line' would normally have kept things going the way they were. massive legislation on the horizon likely made it too tough to bear.

social advocacy from the scientific community is ok, but it became dangerously close to crossing the line

we do need a cleaner planet and awareness is key. we need sustainability, not carbon tax trading schemes based on the idea that the world is about to end

 

What scares me....is that statement ...Man's influence on the climate. I think thats a very narrow comfort zone as a citizen of this planet.

A much broader, and in my opinion, important question, is what is the affect on the entire ecosystem. See, guys like Al Gore will tell us the truth that the sky is falling. He will convince everyone that has an extra dollar that we need to lower global temperatures. He'll invest millions and make billions on things like the Carbon Tax Exchange. But please, tell me Al.

WTF does this do about our polluted oceans and waters? How does this help when countries like China and Japan have no problem raping the fisheries? How about strip mining....cutting down the rain forests to create huge grazing areas for cows so companies like McDonalds can buy cheap beef?

And now we have all of these people lining up to battle the Global Warming Crowd, and all of the other real issues are going to get forgotten and buried, and some of them will actually believe that Man has done nothing destructive to the planet we all live on.

 

In the long run I believe that will be the final legacy of global warming. They'll end up finding that man's effect is negligible and countless resources were wasted.

 

it just keeps getting better. now they are withdrawing their claim that sea levels are rising. amazing how many people were duped into believing this hogwash. thank god for the people with common sense

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

 

I'm kinda pissed actually.

I live in Va and the winters here are far too cold. The reason everyone wants to go the Caribbean, or Florida on vacation is that the weather is amazing. I think its only fair the rest of the world have similarly sunny weather.

But now it appears Gore has let me down yet again with empty promises of all that nasty ice melting so we could have beach parties all year round.

Seriously, its getting really hard to defend the idea of global warming anymore. Too much data has been proven to be absolutely false, misquoted, and lost. But whats almost as worrying to me is how obvious its become that those in charge of the data were not operating in the true scientific spirit of just trying to find the truth. Many of the key people involved made up their mind long ago what the "truth" of global warming was and have simply used the parts of the data they like to continue to make their case.

Its dangerous when science becomes corrupted like that IMO. Very dangerous.

 

and the ones that didnt joined the NHL or moved to Brooklyn

 

sad part is, it was obvious from the start that this was bunk science. the really frightening part is how easily people can be swayed by the media. there was just enough opposition to keep all the liberals at bay but we were merely buying time. thankfully that time allowed people to see that the emperor had no clothes. you want to get a chuckle, check out the global warming threads from two years ago and see how those who doubted were denounced as the equivalent of people who believed the earth was flat

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc"]YouTube- 8. Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag"]YouTube- 8a. Climate Change - supplement[/ame]

So the Phil Jones stuff is practically from the National Enquirer.

 

More fuel for the fire: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

 

how is the foil hat fitting?