Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[JIbbo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

 

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

* There has been no global warming since 1995

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

 

It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.”

 

Anyone other that Prof. Jones stating what is said in the interview about no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years and the possibility of worldwide MWP would be attacked as a misinformed sceptic. Maybe he is becoming more sceptical because he can see where the ship is headed and its time to jump ship.

 

As a commenter observed in the Mail on Sunday:

 

“The man contradicts himself several times, not only in this piece but in past statements, including one claim that he had “lost” all data during a relocation, destroyed it because he “didn’t have storage space.”"

 

Now he

 

“admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

…….

his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

……

his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.”

 

Yet he can find data to share with his colleagues and helps write up reports for the IPCC. He probably suspects that the investigation into CRU might reveal that the dog did not eat the data (just speculating), but he’s looks ready to jump ship.

[Wildcat]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

 

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

* There has been no global warming since 1995

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

 

It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.”

 

Anyone other that Prof. Jones stating what is said in the interview about no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years and the possibility of worldwide MWP would be attacked as a misinformed sceptic. Maybe he is becoming more sceptical because he can see where the ship is headed and its time to jump ship.

 

As a commenter observed in the Mail on Sunday:

 

“The man contradicts himself several times, not only in this piece but in past statements, including one claim that he had “lost” all data during a relocation, destroyed it because he “didn’t have storage space.”"

 

Now he

 

“admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

…….

his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

……

his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.”

 

Yet he can find data to share with his colleagues and helps write up reports for the IPCC. He probably suspects that the investigation into CRU might reveal that the dog did not eat the data (just speculating), but he’s looks ready to jump ship.

 

Here is what he actually said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

 

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

 

The data for the "hockey stick graph" is still there, what isn't there is complete references to all the sources of data used. This is hardly vital nor of much importance since the graph has been confirmed by subsequent analysis of the data available and of other sets of data on temperature.

 

* There has been no global warming since 1995

 

He doesn't say there has been no global warming since 1995. Although he does appear to be ignorant of the fact that the CRU dataset he is taking his evidence from has consistently underestimated global warming:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

 

Like duhhh No one has ever said anything else.

 

The commentator from the Mail on Sunday appears to be pretty clueless.

[JIbbo]

Here is what he actually said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

 

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

 

The data for the "hockey stick graph" is still there, what isn't there is complete references to all the sources of data used. This is hardly vital nor of much importance since the graph has been confirmed by subsequent analysis of the data available and of other sets of data on temperature.

 

* There has been no global warming since 1995

 

He doesn't say there has been no global warming since 1995. Although he does appear to be ignorant of the fact that the CRU dataset he is taking his evidence from has consistently underestimated global warming:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Like duhhh No one has ever said anything else.

 

The commentator from the Mail on Sunday appears to be pretty clueless.

 

"

The data for the "hockey stick graph" is still there, what isn't there is complete references to all the sources of data used. This is hardly vital nor of much importance since the graph has been confirmed by subsequent analysis of the data available and of other sets of data on temperature. "

 

If all of the 'source data' isn't there how can the records for the 'hockey stick graph' be there as that was based on the throusands of temperature records across the globe ? If ALL the source data for the graph isn't present how can you recreate it ?

 

He actually said and i quote....

 

" in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming"

 

So your completely wrong on both your previous statements.

[Wildcat]

"

The data for the "hockey stick graph" is still there, what isn't there is complete references to all the sources of data used. This is hardly vital nor of much importance since the graph has been confirmed by subsequent analysis of the data available and of other sets of data on temperature. "

 

If all of the 'source data' isn't there how can the records for the 'hockey stick graph' be there as that was based on the throusands of temperature records across the globe ? If ALL the source data for the graph isn't present how can you recreate it ?

 

The source data is there, it is not within CRU's ability to delete records held elsewhere.

 

this explains how the hockey stick graph can be recreated and has been proving the conclusions to the paper were correct:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

He actually said and i quote....

 

" in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming"

 

So your completely wrong on both your previous statements.

 

That does not conflict with what I said, it just conflcits with what you said.

 

He is also wrong on that point, and doesn't seem to be aware of the research published in December showing flaws with the CRU dataset. I can only assume that this is because he has been distracted by all the high profile criticisms of him as a Scientist on such flimsy grounds.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

[I1L2T3]

The source data is there, it is not within CRU's ability to delete records held elsewhere.

 

this explains how the hockey stick graph can be recreated and has been proving the conclusions to the paper were correct:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

 

 

That does not conflict with what I said, it just conflcits with what you said.

 

He is also wrong on that point, and doesn't seem to be aware of the research published in December showing flaws with the CRU dataset. I can only assume that this is because he has been distracted by all the high profile criticisms of him as a Scientist on such flimsy grounds.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

Your most desperate and ridiculous post yet I reckon. Linking to a met office article is trawling the depths. You won't convince anybody by doing that.

[JIbbo]

The source data is there, it is not within CRU's ability to delete records held elsewhere.

 

this explains how the hockey stick graph can be recreated and has been proving the conclusions to the paper were correct:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

 

 

That does not conflict with what I said, it just conflcits with what you said.

 

He is also wrong on that point, and doesn't seem to be aware of the research published in December showing flaws with the CRU dataset. I can only assume that this is because he has been distracted by all the high profile criticisms of him as a Scientist on such flimsy grounds.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

Of course it does ! Jones AUTHORED the hockey stick graph, its HIS signiture on it ! The Hockey stick graph shown UNPRECIDENTED warming attributed to humans, not 'warming per say'

 

If he can't find the records to support his OWN graph it makes it invalid.

 

Other studies show warming thats similar to any other natural warming over the pact 1000 years, and not exceptional !

 

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/warming_graph.gif

 

Its the famous graph above that the IPCC plastered ALL over its reports to show how humans were influcing the climate to an unprecidented degree, which Jones authored and has now 'lost the data' for.

 

Not ANY OTHER STUDIES.

[Wildcat]

Of course it does ! Jones AUTHORED the hockey stick graph, its HIS signiture on it ! The Hockey stick graph shown UNPRECIDENTED warming attributed to humans, not 'warming per say'

 

If he can't find the records to support his OWN graph it makes it invalid.

 

Other studies show warming thats similar to any other natural warming over the pact 1000 years, and not exceptional !

 

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/warming_graph.gif

 

Its the famous graph above that the IPCC plastered ALL over its reports to show how humans were influcing the climate to an unprecidented degree, which Jones authored and has now 'lost the data' for.

 

Not ANY OTHER STUDIES.

 

Your first point doesn't seem to bear any relation to what I wrote.

 

Where does the second graph come from? because as my link shows it isn't showing the trend from boreholes, stalactites and glaciers which all show the same hockey stick effect.

 

The fact they all independently show the same results as the 1998 paper makes the precise data set used in 1998 academic. The hockey stick has been proven by independent results.

[barny_100]

An interesting link here for those who refute anything that doesn't comply with tha AGW line with the ad hominem "Big Oil must have paid for it".

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

[Wildcat]

An interesting link here for those who refute anything that doesn't comply with tha AGW line with the ad hominem "Big Oil must have paid for it".

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

 

Indeed it is interesting. The article is completely torn apart in the comments, and half way through she is forced to give some sources for her view that CO2 has half the effect on warming as previously claimed. The papers she cites however have serious flaws. In particular Lindzen and Choi:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/

 

Spencer himself even tears that paper apart:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/

 

And Spencer's own view is torn apart here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/

 

And who is she? a paid lobbyist for Shell!

http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova

 

Just read through the comments objectively. You will read a lot of the usual sycophantic conspiracy theorists making the denier argument that evidence of some doubt means you can throw the whole theory away, despite not having an alternative of any merit.

 

GrumpyOldMan and Lotharson in particular make good points.

 

Lotharson posts this which deserves a read:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/real-struggle-behind-climate-change-war.html

Edited March 6, 2010 by Wildcat

[barny_100]

Indeed it is interesting...

Amazing, all that time on your hands and you fail at reading comprehension!

 

How many paragraphs dip into the science side of things? The last 4 or 5 short ones. How many are talking about the Government funding, Carbon Trading side of things? 18.

 

So you either think the meat of the post was the science, in which case words fail me, or you don't want to discuss the issues it raises e.g Government Funding, Carbon Trading, Big Banks.

 

For example, Richard North at EU Referendum is finding a whole rabbit warren of Government funding of "research" that seems an awful lot like pseudo-scientific padding for green propaganda.

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/big-climate-brother.html