Phil Jones: no warming since 1995

[CogSpin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-
scientist-centre-global-warming-email-ro w-admits-data-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 11:02 AM on 14th February 2010

* 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

The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.

The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of 'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be.

'There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.'

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no 'statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled 'until recently - and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

[Memorize]

At 2/14/10 08:17 AM, Victory wrote: The Daily Mail is one of the worst right-wing tabloids in Britain, most definitely not a reputable source.

Translation: "It's only reputable if it's left-wing."

[AapoJoki]

Here is the actual context:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur e/8511670.stm

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.

[Memorize]

At 2/14/10 09:35 AM, Victory wrote:

I am not a left-winger.

Uh-huh.

You know, whatever happend to all the people defending Jones over those leaked e-mails? After all, "hiding the decline" could mean anything.

I guess that all changes when everyone found out they had conveniantly lost raw data and were found to have violated freedom of information.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 2/14/10 09:26 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/14/10 08:17 AM, Victory wrote: The Daily Mail is one of the worst right-wing tabloids in Britain, most definitely not a reputable source.

Translation: "It's only reputable if it's left-wing."

If a right-winger said it's not reputable would you jump all over him/her too?

[Memorize]

At 2/14/10 01:16 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

If a right-winger said it's not reputable would you jump all over him/her too?

Did you bitch when Musician used a poll from the DailyKos?

[MultiCanimefan]

At 2/14/10 01:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/14/10 01:16 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Did you bitch when Musician used a poll from the DailyKos?

I didn't necessarily bitch, but I didn't like it.

[FUNKbrs]

Study geologic climate history based on ice cores, stalactites, and other fossils.

Climate change is NORMAL. It was going on for millions of years BEFORE humanity.

[morefngdbs]

I've learned that water vapor in the atmosphere is also a major factor in holding heat in the atmosphere !
I've learned there is more of it in the atmosphere than there is Carbondioxide !?!

PEOPLE GO BUY DEHUMIDIFIERS & PUT THEWM OUTSIDE & TURN THEM ON.
This if done by 3 billion peoople could save the world, or is as likely to save the world as carbon taxes & credits ;)

[Warforger]

I love how the thread title is misleading, the scientist said there was no significant change, but he did say it was close to significant IIRC

At 2/14/10 01:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/14/10 01:16 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

If a right-winger said it's not reputable would you jump all over him/her too?

Did you bitch when Musician used a poll from the DailyKos?

And yet again, trying to start a flame war when all you've done in this thread were personal attacks.

[Musician]

At 2/14/10 02:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Study geologic climate history based on ice cores, stalactites, and other fossils.

Climate change is NORMAL. It was going on for millions of years BEFORE humanity.

Yes global warming has occurred in the past due to natural causes, this does not mean that the current warming trend is natural. Many scientists have tried to prove the current warming trend is natural and have failed to do so.

So would everyone in this thread stop being so vocal about shit they clearly don't understand?

If you haven't done the research stop pretending you have

[SeaBoundRhino]

The daily mail is a horrible source. I wouldn't believe a single word from it.

This article means nothing until it is backed up by a reliable newspaper.

[Memorize]

At 2/14/10 02:48 PM, Warforger wrote:

And yet again, trying to start a flame war when all you've done in this thread were personal attacks.

Problem?

At 2/14/10 04:57 PM, Musician wrote:

So would everyone in this thread stop being so vocal about shit they clearly don't understand?

If you haven't done the research stop pretending you have

Because you have a degree in climatology, right?

Speaking of hypocrites: Where were you when Al Gore used that infamous graph to claim that CO2 levels increased before Temperature, when the opposite was true?

Where were you to tell the scientists that they're models were wrong in stating that Global Temperatures would continuously rise without our recent cold spell?

Where were you to criticize Al Gore when he over-stated how much the sea levels would rise (so much so that not even the IPCC gave such outrageous numbers)?

Where were you to lambast the Climate Institutes for illegally witholding information, deleting data and e-mails, publishing unverified claims about the rainforests and glaciers?

Let me guess: You're such a Genius and Global Warming is going to be so horrible, that you figured it'd be better if you just let people exaggerate to hasten legislation since the ends justify the means!

[SmilezRoyale]

I don't believe that the government can solve global warming, given that it exists and even if it is anthropogenically caused.

To a limited extent this raises the question to alarmists, what other factors besides GHG emissions are changing temperature, in leiu of the fact that GHG's have unambiguously increased when temperatures have (even if they are on the whole going up) And, once we know those factors, can GHG be isolated as a variable and plotted against temperature once all other factors have been accounted for.

However this isn't a smoking gun against the idea that global warming is human caused. Climate change of the kind alarmists talk about is something that should be looked at from the start of the 1860's to the present.

[fli]

And yet, we still have Stephen Hawking who says that something is happening. And there is still a larger consensus by the world scientists that something is happening.

Yes, there are going to be other findings, but that's what's science is about.

The only time politics comes in is when who agrees with what.

Are we gonna follow what several independent scientific studies show...
Or are we gonna follow the one study that says differently, and say, "HA!" to everything else?

I'm siding what the larger community says.
Not because of my political ideology, but there is more evidence towards the side I've chosen. But that doesn't mean it can't swing to the other if the consensus swings to the other side.

[Memorize]

At 2/15/10 02:17 PM, fli wrote: And yet, we still have Stephen Hawking who says that something is happening. And there is still a larger consensus by the world scientists that something is happening.

You know, I could say that the earth is flat and provide several pieces of evidence as to why that is.

I could then be told that everything I said was either false or exaggerated.

Then I could be like them at the IPCC and elsewhere and respond: "The consensus still stands."

Excuse me for being a little 'tickled pink', but simply saying "the consensus stands" is bullshit when you've:

-Lost data
-Violated freedom of information
-incorrectly stated the sea levels
-were greatly exaggerating glacier melting (with no research into that particular issue at all)
-were wrong about the rainforest (quoting from environmental groups about logging).
-Greatly reduced the number of temperature measuring devices (ie. 6000 down to 1500 - so much for trying to be accurate).

[bcdemon]

Myself I will take actual data that I can see with my own eyes. The fact that it hasn't snowed in my city this year (I haven't had snow in my yard since Dec 26-09), nor has it been below 0 degrees for more than two days in a row is a sign that something is happening. Forecast of 10 degrees ABOVE 0 today, this is usual for late March, not mid Feb.

[KeithHybrid]

At 2/14/10 02:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Study geologic climate history based on ice cores, stalactites, and other fossils.

Climate change is NORMAL. It was going on for millions of years BEFORE humanity.

And based on that, we should not research any further into the matter and continue driving exhaust-chugging hummers until the ice caps melt and the whole planet turns into Kevin Costner's Waterworld?

[poxpower]

At 2/15/10 06:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

Excuse me for being a little 'tickled pink', but simply saying "the consensus stands" is bullshit when you've:

And of course you're backing these claims with... what again?

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 10:27 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/15/10 06:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

Excuse me for being a little 'tickled pink', but simply saying "the consensus stands" is bullshit when you've:

And of course you're backing these claims with... what again?

You claim to be on the side of science.

So then, why do you not criticize these so-calles scientists for using a mere 1500 weather stations when we used to use 6000?

I thought Global Warming was catastrophic and had to be a scientific and accurate as possible!

Though I do love the how you people are just as guilty. Here we have a minor snow storm and colder weather and what do sceptics say? "Ah-ha! Warming is false!".

But then how do people like you respond? "Ah-ha! Cold weather for 2 months! Proof that Warming is real!".

It tickles my pickle pink as a feather.

[poxpower]

At 2/18/10 12:41 PM, Memorize wrote:

So then, why do you not criticize these so-calles scientists for using a mere 1500 weather stations when we used to use 6000?

See again this it the type of claim that you make without understanding. You don't really understand why they use less stations, nor do you give a shit. You probably haven't looked into why there's less stations ( or less data from stations ) all you ever do is post one-line "smoking guns" in every topic you post in.

The short answer to this is: it's not the weather experts who decide how many stations there are, it's the governments who attribute funding to them.

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 01:10 PM, poxpower wrote:

The short answer to this is: it's not the weather experts who decide how many stations there are, it's the governments who attribute funding to them.

So basically... you didn't even refute my point about how less weather stations = less accuracy since there's less direct data.

All you did was blame the Government to cover the ass of the scientists who use the weather stations; something that is completely irrelevant to what I said.

Congrats!

But hey, I'd like to get your take on Phil Jones (the guy who you defended about the e-mails) when he said the science isn't settled, nor has there been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

[poxpower]

At 2/18/10 01:53 PM, Memorize wrote:

So basically... you didn't even refute my point about how less weather stations = less accuracy since there's less direct data.

You tried to make it seem like they willingly IGNORED the data, that they stopped using it ON PURPOSE.

Frankly, we probably don't need 6000. Or 1500. I bet 100 stations would be more than enough, not to mention the satellites.

There's a point beyond which the accuracy gain is negligible.

But hey, I'd like to get your take on Phil Jones (the guy who you defended about the e-mails) when he said the science isn't settled, nor has there been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

Did you read the article posted in this thread? It's all in there already.

[AapoJoki]

At 2/18/10 01:53 PM, Memorize wrote: nor has there been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

If you read and understood what Jones actually said, you'd know that his point was that 15 years basically is too short of a time to have a statistical significance to begin with.

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 01:59 PM, poxpower wrote:

You tried to make it seem like they willingly IGNORED the data, that they stopped using it ON PURPOSE.

Do I dare put up the link from Russia, again?

Frankly, we probably don't need 6000. Or 1500. I bet 100 stations would be more than enough, not to mention the satellites.

Oh, those pesky satellites.

Personally, I love how they showed cooling until the "scientists" "conveniantly" found an "error", then "fiddled" with the data to which it now "conveniantly" shows warming.

Hey!

Kind of like the raw data they deleted and then were found guilty of violating freedom of information!

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 02:03 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 2/18/10 01:53 PM, Memorize wrote: nor has there been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

If you read and understood what Jones actually said, you'd know that his point was that 15 years basically is too short of a time to have a statistical significance to begin with.

That's what I said.

Or do you not comprehend "statistically significant"?

Now... "If you read and understood what Memorize actually said..."

[poxpower]

At 2/18/10 02:57 PM, Memorize wrote:

Personally, I love how they showed cooling until the "scientists" "conveniantly" found an "error", then "fiddled" with the data to which it now "conveniantly" shows warming.

If there's an explanation, to you it's just "part of the conspiracy".

Kind of like the raw data they deleted and then were found guilty of violating freedom of information!

They were never found guilty of anything as far as I know. But hey, it would be easy to prove me wrong on that! Go ahead.

The raw data that was lost, if I recall, was from the 80s. It wasn't deleted for nefarious reasons, it was just taking up too much space. Back then, computers were shitty in case you forgot.

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 03:40 PM, poxpower wrote:

If there's an explanation, to you it's just "part of the conspiracy".

Depends on weather or not that conspiracy turns out to be true.

For instance: It was a conspiracy to claim that FDR knew about the Japanese planes before they reached Peal Harbor.

But thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that FDR placed oil sanctions on Japan in order to motivate them to attack us so he could turn public opinion for the War. Ships were going to intercept the planes until they were ordered by Washington to turn back.

9/11? Um... no. Bush is too much of an idiot to pull off something like that.

That would imply some sort of intelligence on the part of the Government.

They were never found guilty of anything as far as I know. But hey, it would be easy to prove me wrong on that! Go ahead.

Found to have violated it, but since they weren't prosecuted within 6 months of the violation, they can't be prosecuted. Technicalities FTW!

The raw data that was lost, if I recall, was from the 80s. It wasn't deleted for nefarious reasons, it was just taking up too much space. Back then, computers were shitty in case you forgot.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Let me rephrase: "Conveniantly lost/nowhere to be found/dumped".

But hey! At least they still have their "adjusted" data!

[poxpower]

At 2/18/10 04:41 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/18/10 03:40 PM, poxpower wrote:

If there's an explanation, to you it's just "part of the conspiracy".

Depends on weather or not that conspiracy turns out to be true.

No, not here.
There's a perfectly fine explanation for the discrepency of the satellite data for this case and all you found to say is that it's "convenient" that they found an explanation, insinuating that it's some kind of new cover-up.

Found to have violated it, but since they weren't prosecuted within 6 months of the violation, they can't be prosecuted. Technicalities FTW!

The case of the Freedom of Information act does NOT pertain to anything relevant for the "conspiracy". It doesn't discredit anyone. They only failed to provide one dude ( who, as far as I know, doesn't have anything to do with climate research as he's a retired engineer) with information when he requested it and he apparently didn't give a shit enough to press charges when they ignored him.

Everything you'll read about the review of the data, the science or the scientist's conclusions doesn't contradict their research and doesn't shake up the global consensus at all.

It's just more kook-fodder for people like you who chew on "smoking gun evidence" that you can't really put into context and whenever it's explained to you, you raise an eyebrow and go "hhmm well isn't that CONVENIENT that you have an explanation for this!!!".

Let me rephrase: "Conveniantly lost/nowhere to be found/dumped".

See again, there's a perfectly logical explanation for why they don't have the raw data ( which is a shitton of data by the way, especially by 80s computer standards ) but you choose to ignore that and instead make it sound like a cover-up.

here's the actual reason:
"The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. "

Those were probably a shit-ton of boxes full of crap no one imagined would ever be useful again as they had already gone through the process of sorting the data for use.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en vironment/article6936328.ece

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

No, not here.
There's a perfectly fine explanation for the discrepency of the satellite data for this case and all you found to say is that it's "convenient" that they found an explanation, insinuating that it's some kind of new cover-up.

You don't find it even slightly odd that they "found" an error they "corrected", thereby making it match up with models... which havent' exactly been the most accurate forecast?

The case of the Freedom of Information act does NOT pertain to anything relevant for the "conspiracy". It doesn't discredit anyone. They only failed to provide one dude ( who, as far as I know, doesn't have anything to do with climate research as he's a retired engineer) with information when he requested it and he apparently didn't give a shit enough to press charges when they ignored him.

This has happened more than once. And you can't possibly sit there with a straight face and tell me that the reason why they didn't give it "to just 1 guy" was because it would've bogged won their work (which is their excuse in the article).

Really? Thousands of scientists and just 1 person is going to make their work tedious? LOL!

Besides, let's say it was just the 1 guy who doesn't have anything to do with climate: Then what's the big deal?

Everything you'll read about the review of the data, the science or the scientist's conclusions doesn't contradict their research and doesn't shake up the global consensus at all.

Phil Jones: "No consensus"

The very same man you defended when this first broke with the e-mails.

It's just more kook-fodder for people like you who chew on "smoking gun evidence" that you can't really put into context and whenever it's explained to you, you raise an eyebrow and go "hhmm well isn't that CONVENIENT that you have an explanation for this!!!".

Except that I actually believe in man-made Global Warming.

The difference? I don't exaggerate it. Nor do I trust Governments using tax payer dollars to fund their "special friends".

See again, there's a perfectly logical explanation for why they don't have the raw data ( which is a shitton of data by the way, especially by 80s computer standards ) but you choose to ignore that and instead make it sound like a cover-up.

It's only 25 years worth of raw data.

No big deal.

here's the actual reason:
"The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. "

Key word: "Revised Figures".

Raw data dumped so now no one can take a good look at the original material.

Those were probably a shit-ton of boxes full of crap no one imagined would ever be useful again as they had already gone through the process of sorting the data for use.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en vironment/article6936328.ece

Excuses Excuses.