Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

A bit of his (Phil Jones) interview with the beeb

 

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

 

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.

 

 

This little video alos explains a bit further than my previous post why that quote is not incompatible with him also saying:

 

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

 

Phil Jones: 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.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/cp-iB6jwjUc

 

In fact it tells us the Economist has described the Daily Mail's take on the quotation as an outright lie.

[RobbyBrown]

Global warming is definatly happening.

 

Even on the South Coast of England, women during the summer even take their bra off when sunbathing. If this is not evidence, then I don't know what evidence you need.

 

Even as short as 20 years ago, or even 10 years, women kept their tops on because it was too cold.

[Lockjaw]

 

That's why I believe it to be 'tosh' - Why do you believe otherwise? Because some lentil-soup eating Greenpeace member tells you it is?

 

Why do you believe I believe otherwise?

[BarmyArmy]

All of them that publish research apart from Shaviv 2005 that thinks Cosmic rays are responsible (the obvious flaw is that solar radiation has been constant whilst temperatures have risen) and Zhen-Shan 2006 who make an assumption that CO2's relationship with temperature is linear rather than logarithmic making his conclusions demonstrably false.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=122

 

 

 

Sea level is rising 1.7 mm a year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html

 

Arctic Ice is melting quicker than the predictions:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

 

Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming.htm

 

More on the Antarctic Ice increasing, but also note the Antarctic has been warming beyond the global average:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice.htm

 

 

 

False again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

 

Although it has been warmer in the distant past explained by geological, solar and volcanic reasons.

 

 

 

Utter tosh:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

 

 

 

97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

And there are only 2 peer reviewed papers in the last 15 years that disagree with consensus. I have explained why both are wrong in response to your first point.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=122

 

There are plenty of scientists, meteorologists etc that dont buy into it so i guess its down to which ones you choose to believe

[Wildcat]

There are plenty of scientists, meteorologists etc that dont buy into it so i guess its down to which ones you choose to believe

 

When there is evidence there is no need to rely on guess work for making your judgments.

[I1L2T3]

When there is evidence there is no need to rely on guess work for making your judgments.

 

What about mindless acceptance of a discredited scientific consensus. Will that do?

[BarmyArmy]

When there is evidence there is no need to rely on guess work for making your judgments.

 

As a stand alone statement that it true however there is insufficient evidence to prove that the human race is responsible for all these supposed things that are happening in the world currently ... and indeed if they are happening

[Wildcat]

As a stand alone statement that it true however there is insufficient evidence to prove that the human race is responsible for all these supposed things that are happening in the world currently ... and indeed if they are happening

 

An anlaysis of 29,000 datasets shows it is happening:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

 

and an analysis of the mass spectrometry of the CO2 in the atmosphere causing rise in temperatures proves the man made source:

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

The evidence is more than sufficient.

[retep]

Remember this fella, Dr Willie Soon,

 

 

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIzYjViYjA0OWQzOTY3M2ZkNDE2MDEzNWJmZTI2NzU=

[Wildcat]

Remember this fella, Dr Willie Soon,

 

 

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIzYjViYjA0OWQzOTY3M2ZkNDE2MDEzNWJmZTI2NzU=

 

Yes, his paper was the one that was deeply flawed and caused such controversy at Climate Research when it was published that the editor and half the editorial board resigned in protest.

 

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

 

He has about as little credibility as it is possible to have.