Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Hide the decline !

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded#

[BritPat]

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

 

 

 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or

first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps

to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from

1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual

land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land

N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999

for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with

data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

 

Cheers

Phil

 

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx

School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx

University of East Anglia

Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx

NR4 7TJ

UK

 

To hide the decline indeed.

[Grandad.Malky]

To hide the decline indeed.

 

Now now we don’t want to upset all the google scientists on the forum do we.

[splodgeyAl]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/

 

GLACIERS in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas have stopped melting after the release of secret emails showing climate change scientists are at it.

 

Vast ice sheets across the globe gained up to four inches just hours after it emerged experts at the University of East Anglia had been manipulating data in a bid to knock-off early.

 

Meanwhile in the Antarctic the 200 square mile Donnelly ice shelf changed direction and headed back towards the continent where it then reattached itself to the slightly larger McPartlin ice shelf.

 

Climate change sceptic and fully-qualified blogger Martin Bishop said: "As soon as these emails were released the world's glaciers resumed their normal, icey behaviour, as long-predicted by some of London's most important journalists.

 

"This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism."

 

He added: "More than half the world's journalists who have read Nigel Lawson's book now accept that the atmosphere could not possibly have been affected by setting fire to millions of tons of coal, oil and gas every single day for 150 years while at the same time chopping down most of the really big trees.

 

"Can we all please now return to some kind of sanity and tie George Monbiot to the back of a Range Rover?"

 

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "While there will always be debate over climate data, it's important to remember that the state of the world's icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious, hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument."

 

But Bill McKay, an accountant from Dunbar, said: "I'm not a scientist, but last week I noticed some mosquito-like creatures buzzing around the light at my back door. Again, not a scientist, but... mosquitos, November, Scotland.

 

"Someone needs to explain that to me, because as things stand, it does seem to be a tad ****ed up."

[back2basics]

To hide the decline indeed.

 

Do you have any idea of the context? Or even what data they were talking about? Do you have any experience with statistics, in University or outside as a profession?

[back2basics]

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

 

See even the figures from the CRU show we haven't had a warming trend since 1998.

 

In your opinion. Not in mine.

 

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28149d1e907d3f18.jpg

 

[Wildcat]

Go on humour me, we've known for 44 years! Prove it.

What about the collapsed 'ice age' theories of the 70's?

 

How many peer reviewed reports do you know of that conflict with the consensus view?

 

This analysis of IPCC papers comes up with no papers from 1993 to 2003 that conflict with the consensus view.

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories:

explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate

change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

 

Show me one link that proves there is a manmade signal in climate change, and if so that the signal is the major contributing factor.

 

Just google a report you will find 75% of them do.

 

How about this one for starters?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

 

Michael Mann again. He we go circular links that show the science is far from proven.

 

What do you expect when you keep quoting rubbish from McIntyre?

 

So you deny that citing sensors in urban areas skews the data they produce, even CRU make 'adjustments' to account for the skew.

 

So if they take account for it then what is your problem? It has very little impact on the main warming which is in the oceans and ice sheets.

 

Yet another pro site.

 

Is there an anti site that has any scientific legitimacy or integrity to quote from as an alternative?

 

Here read this

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

 

See even the figures from the CRU show we haven't had a warming trend since 1998.

 

In your opinion. Not in mine.

 

Same comment same response. CRU figures do show a temperature rise, just not a surface temperature rise because of the El Nino effect.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

[Wildcat]

To hide the decline indeed.

 

Have you never heard of tricks used before to get more accurate results? It is pretty common terminology in mathematics and statistical analysis.

 

This is the response to that allegation:

 

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

[Wildcat]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28149d1e907d3f18.jpg

 

 

That pretty much sums it up.

[BritPat]

Do you have any idea of the context? Or even what data they were talking about? Do you have any experience with statistics, in University or outside as a profession?

 

We touched on statistics during my mathematical physics degree at UCL.