BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Mike Jr
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
--Mike Jr.
Mike Jr
I didn't mean to leave out a come to Trimurti moment. Sorry.
--Mike Jr.
Ace0f_5pades
n|n
Mike Jr
[> <crap>]
How articulate of you. Maybe the BBC can interview you next.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCpOKtN8ME
Hee.
--Mike Jr.
jerry warner
Peter Webb
"Mike Jr" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7b34fc3f-2bd5-4362...@y7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> Talk about a come to Jesus/Moses/Mohamed/Gautama/Gaia moment.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
>
> --Mike Jr.
This is a series of Q&As with Phil Jones, who is the embattled head of the
CRU. Here is some of what he believes about AGW, according to his written
response to questions put to him:
1. The temperature increased from 1975 to 2009 at a slower rate than it did
1860 - 1880, when anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule, and at about the same
rate as from 1910 to 1940.
2. There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
3. The earth has cooled at the rate of 0.12 degrees/decade since 2002.
4. He is certain the earth has warmed, but not certain it has anything to do
with people, where he says only "there's evidence that most of the warming
since the 1950s is due to human activity".
He refused to answer questions on whether he acted in line with acceptable
scientific practices, and dodged questions on why he wouldn't release raw
data, encouraged colleagues to destroy emails, why he said he would destroy
the data rather than allow it be publicly scrutinised, and indeed how the
data came to be lost.
He also dodged the question on whether he expects to continue being a
director of the CRU when they return from summer break.
(Snigger).
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>This is a series of Q&As with Phil Jones, who is the embattled head of the
>CRU. Here is some of what he believes about AGW, according to his written
>response to questions put to him:
>
>1. The temperature increased from 1975 to 2009 at a slower rate than it did
>1860 - 1880, when anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule, and at about the same
>rate as from 1910 to 1940.
He didn't say that. He said that the data quality from 1860-1880 was of
poorer quality than later data, and that his opinion is that the
temperature trends over the four short periods in question "are similar
and not statistically significantly different from each other".
>2. There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
He said that this is true if you treat "statistically significant" as
meaning a 95% confidence level. He did say there was a positive trend
that was close to this level, and that the period was short enough that
getting a statistically significant trend is difficult.
>3. The earth has cooled at the rate of 0.12 degrees/decade since 2002.
He specifically said that this even shorter time interval is too short
for any trend to have statistical significance.
>4. He is certain the earth has warmed, but not certain it has anything to do
>with people, where he says only "there's evidence that most of the warming
>since the 1950s is due to human activity".
He said that this question was outside his area of expertise, but that
he agreed with the IPCC conclusion you quote above. That's what nearly
all scientists say.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:eiecn5dl7h95g02i3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:58:38 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>This is a series of Q&As with Phil Jones, who is the embattled head of the
>>CRU. Here is some of what he believes about AGW, according to his written
>>response to questions put to him:
>>
>>1. The temperature increased from 1975 to 2009 at a slower rate than it
>>did
>>1860 - 1880, when anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule, and at about the same
>>rate as from 1910 to 1940.
>
> He didn't say that. He said that the data quality from 1860-1880 was of
> poorer quality than later data, and that his opinion is that the
> temperature trends over the four short periods in question "are similar
> and not statistically significantly different from each other".
Yes, he did say they were comparable, and actually provided the warming
figures for the various periods which show a greater warming rate 1860 to
1880 than from 1975 to 2009. These were his figures, freely given, in
writing, and included in full in the article.
>
>>2. There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
>
> He said that this is true if you treat "statistically significant" as
> meaning a 95% confidence level. He did say there was a positive trend
> that was close to this level, and that the period was short enough that
> getting a statistically significant trend is difficult.
>
Yeah. No statistically significant warming since 1995. That is what he said.
Of course, he is only the head of the CRU, what would he know about
statistical significance?
>>3. The earth has cooled at the rate of 0.12 degrees/decade since 2002.
>
> He specifically said that this even shorter time interval is too short
> for any trend to have statistical significance.
>
He stated his belief that the earth has cooled since 2002 at a rate of
0.12deg/decade.
Lots of other AGW believers are telling us the earth is still warming.
Indeed, skpetics who say otherwise are roundly condemned and (often) accused
of being in the employ of cigarette companies (and no, I don't understand
the connection either).
According to the head of the CRU the earth has cooled over the last 7 years.
So now we know.
>>4. He is certain the earth has warmed, but not certain it has anything to
>>do
>>with people, where he says only "there's evidence that most of the warming
>>since the 1950s is due to human activity".
>
> He said that this question was outside his area of expertise, but that
> he agreed with the IPCC conclusion you quote above.
No, he doesn't say that at all. Again, you are living in some alternate
reality. Again, you snipped the original, so nobody can check.
If anybody wants to see what Phil Jones actually said, which is as I quote
above (and not what Peterson wishes he said), the link that Peterson
carefully removed is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Unfortunately, in this Universe I can see no evidence that Jones said what
Peterson claims he did about anthropogenic global warming anywhere at all;
it probably only exists in Peterson's alternate reality universe.
> That's what nearly
> all scientists say.
>
Phil Jones does not say the sorts of things that other scientists say. For
example, most scientists don't hide behind legal defences to suppress the
publishing of raw data, suggest that scientific records be destroyed, that
incorrect and incomplete data be deliberately disseminated, or that email
records be destroyed in case they become public.
_________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Phil Jones, head of the East
Anglia CRU, says about global warming.
Like him, I believe there have been three previous periods in the last 200
years when global temperatures have risen as fast as they have since 1975,
despite the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule at these
times.
Like him, I believe the earth has cooled since 2002.
Like him, I believe that there has been no statistically significant warming
since 1995.
Like him, I am not personally convinced that man is responsible.
Hey Peterson, you should launch into an ad-hominem argument against Phil
Jones, head of the CRU!
ROFL
Sam Wormley
>
> I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Phil Jones, head of the East
> Anglia CRU, says about global warming.
>
> Like him, I believe there have been three previous periods in the last
> 200 years when global temperatures have risen as fast as they have since
> 1975, despite the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule at
> these times.
>
> Like him, I believe the earth has cooled since 2002.
Climatologists use 30 year averages.
>
> Like him, I believe that there has been no statistically significant
> warming since 1995.
This last decade has been the warmest on record for 150 years.
Peter Webb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:X7SdneS77Kzg0uvW...@mchsi.com...
Dunno about that. I don't even know why people use the expression the
"warmest [decade] on record for 150 years". Are their any decades *not* on
record in the last 150 years? Which ones?
But the good news according to the head of the CRU is the earth has cooled
since 2002.
Or maybe that's not good news. The earth seemed to function just fine in
2002. I am not sure that getting cooler is in fact an advantage. But if it
was to stop cooling and stay the same temperature for a while, we might not
have to build any more windmills!
Giga2
This is what I would call a scientific view of CC with some bias
towards AGW. Phil Jones seems to really look at the evidence as it
stands with a fairly clear eye. Such a position is the required
starting point for resolving some of the issues around CC. Good for
him.
Mike Jr
Based on fraudulent data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-australia/
--Mike Jr.
AM
> On Feb 13, 2:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/13/10 1:00 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Phil Jones, head of the East
>>> Anglia CRU, says about global warming.
>>> Like him, I believe there have been three previous periods in the last
>>> 200 years when global temperatures have risen as fast as they have since
>>> 1975, despite the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule at
>>> these times.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Like him, I believe that there has been no statistically significant
>>> warming since 1995.
>> This last decade has been the warmest on record for 150 years.
>
> Based on fraudulent data.
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-australia/
>
> --Mike Jr.
And lets not forget their not using data from northern Russia either...
--
AM
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Yes, he did say they were comparable, and actually provided the warming
>figures for the various periods which show a greater warming rate 1860 to
>1880 than from 1975 to 2009. These were his figures, freely given, in
>writing, and included in full in the article.
Yes, that's what he said. It's just not what you reported he said in
your last post.
The rest of the stuff you've misreported as well. I guess we'll just add
reading comprehension to the growing list of your missing intellectual
tools.
Sam Wormley
Back to the concept of fossil fuel pollution of the atmosphere, eh?
I'm trying to point out to you, Peter, that climatology used 30
years, not 8 years!
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
Sam Wormley
Mike you need to show your claim scientifically... and you never do.
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-australia/
>
> --Mike Jr.
Mike Jr
> On 2/13/10 7:03 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:06 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> This last decade has been the warmest on record for 150 years.
>
> > Based on fraudulent data.
>
I have, many times, you simply ignore it each time I present it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
--Mike Jr.
Rich
9ed13c...@y7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Talk about a come to Jesus/Moses/Mohamed/Gautama/Gaia moment.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
>
> --Mike Jr.
>
He's a liar and a con-man.
Mike Jr
> Mike Jr <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote in news:7b34fc3f-2bd5-4362-935c-
> 9ed13c766...@y7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Talk about a come to Jesus/Moses/Mohamed/Gautama/Gaia moment.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
>
> > --Mike Jr.
>
> He's a liar and a con-man.
Add to that that Jones is scared, which is usually when someone feels
the need to face their maker. Even when they believe that maker is
13.5 billion years of evolution.
--Mike Jr.
Unum
A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
Thoroughly refuted here;
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
Benj
> >> This last decade has been the warmest on record for 150 years.
>
> > Based on fraudulent data.
>
> Mike you need to show your claim scientifically... and you never do.
How about the fraud of closing 5000 weather stations in the coldest
part of the world?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/
You are such a liar!
Mike Jr
> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 9:57 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/13/10 7:03 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 13, 2:06 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> This last decade has been the warmest on record for 150 years.
>
> >>> Based on fraudulent data.
>
> > *> Mike you need to show your claim scientifically... and you never
> > do.
>
> >>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-australia/
>
> >>> --Mike Jr.
>
> > I have, many times, you simply ignore it each time I present it.
>
>
> > --Mike Jr.
>
> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
>
Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
--Mike Jr.
AM
> How about the fraud of closing 5000 weather stations in the coldest
> part of the world?
>
It's not like he's lying at all. Just take a look at how few stations
they use above 60 deg Latitude. Not the AGW peoples fault the stations
are closed, and it does help their case very much. They can honestly
(ahem) say that the the stations they use, have data that supports their
claims. However the economics of it work against them in the US, so no
real problem. They can go on all they want. The reality is that very
little will be done about it politically, and economically until the
economy picks up. So let them have their fun, it will not go far for now.
And look at where all the *green job's* are going. Overseas and not in
the US. Funny (not) how that is working out........
Global warming is a problem, but one that needs a whole lot more
research, and even more research into what can be done about it. Only
then can we work on the solution. And only AFTER we can get the rest of
the world onboard to work on it. Just a few countries doing something
will not have enough of an impact at all.
Sam Wormley
>
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
>
> --Mike Jr.
Your paper makes claims contradicted by other sources. This
happens all the time, and should send you scurrying to find
out why the contradiction. That leads to scrutinizing the
authors and there sources, taking a look at the volume of
independent pieces of evidence, and asking why climatologists
are coming to the conclusions that they do and based on what
different kinds of data.
I would like you to look at:
Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Sam Wormley
>> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
>
> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do
you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the
work cited in the paper:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
> References
> Fr�lich, C. 2006: Solar irradiance variability since 1978. Space Science Rev., 248, 672-673.
> Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate
> impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966.
> 8
> Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J.
> Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.
> Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature
> change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022.
> Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T.
> Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys.
> Res., 106, 23947-23963.
> Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global
> temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293.
> Hansen, J. 2009: �Storms of My Grandchildren.� Bloomsbury USA, New York. (304 pp.)
>
> --Mike Jr.
Sam Wormley
You are ignoring the death threats, Mike!
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:00:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Yes, he did say they were comparable, and actually provided the warming
>>figures for the various periods which show a greater warming rate 1860 to
>>1880 than from 1975 to 2009. These were his figures, freely given, in
>>writing, and included in full in the article.
>
> Yes, that's what he said. It's just not what you reported he said in
> your last post.
Funny, you snipped what I said, so nobody can check your claim.
To save people finfing the post themselves, here is what I said:
"The temperature increased from 1975 to 2009 at a slower rate than it
did1860 - 1880, when anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule, and at about the same
rate as from 1910 to 1940."
Phil Jones actually provided the figures for each of these periods.
But you also snipped the link to what Phil Jones said! Its like you don't
want people to read what the head of the CRU said about AGW !
So here is the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
So now, this post contains what I said, and what Phil Jones said, so people
can check for themselves!
Its funny, you snipping out the link so people can't check what Phil Jones
said! ROFL. Now you don't want people listening to what influential pro-AGW
scientists think about AGW either!
>
> The rest of the stuff you've misreported as well.
But no actual example. And of course, as you snipped both what I said in my
post and the link to what Phil Jones said, you obviously don't want people
checking this for themselves.
> I guess we'll just add
> reading comprehension to the growing list of your missing intellectual
> tools.
Unfortunately, this is more mainstream Peterson; no science content;
ad-hominem attack; pure crank.
It is Phil Jones who you should be launching ad-hominem attacks against.
Apparently he thinks the world has cooled since 2002, and whilst he is
certain the earth is warming he is not certain it has anything to do with
man.
You can read all about it at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Better be quick. Peterson will presumably snip this as well; he is a bit of
an ostrich.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Hey, Peterson, do you agree with what Phil Jones, head of the East Angle CRU
and one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, said about
AGW here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
If not, why not tell us how your opinions differ from those of the great Dr
Phil Jones?
ROFL
Peter Webb
> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur...
>>>
>>>> --Mike Jr.
>>>
>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
>>>
>>> Thoroughly refuted
>>> here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
>>
>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
>
> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike?
For me, it is the fact that scientifically none of his predictions seem to
do better than chance. Its pretty much the same objection that I have to
astrologers, numerologists, and phrenologists.
Unum
> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> --Mike Jr.
>>>
>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
>>>
>>> Thoroughly refuted
>>> here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
>
> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do
> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the
> work cited in the paper:
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
Mike can only Laugh Out Loud. He can't put any kind of objection together on
this and doesn't know a thing about Hansens's publications or his work. It
is characteristic of deniers that this will not deter him from repeating
things that fit into his world view but be unable to defend them. Sociologists
study ground apes like Mike and write theses on this behavior. The world is a
wonderful place.
Mike Jr
> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> >>>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur...
>
> >>> --Mike Jr.
>
> >> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
>
>
> > Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
>
> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do
> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the
> work cited in the paper:
>
>
[snip]
Sam,
The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised
against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you
or you would know that. I did read your link.
"Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid
boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the
stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by
distance) in nearby boxes.
This exhaustive study http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were
increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and
urban locations."
Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the
monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid
has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a
clear cut case of selection bias.
On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming.
Case in point is Darwin zero.
Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations
in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures
in Northern Australia in 125 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG
"However, the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to
remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”. So, on a whim I thought I’d
take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I
could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home.
Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN “adjusts” the data
to remove the “inhomogeneities”. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN
discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing
longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized”
and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for
Darwin.
To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect,
I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point
(rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)."
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
"Before the “adjustment” by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling
at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were
rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2
Celsius per century.
Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized
Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of
the individual station records, starting with the earliest record.
Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized
versions –"
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg
"It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We
have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all
agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge,
artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.
Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the
adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat."
Sam,
I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I
post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond
to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to
respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero?
--Mike Jr.
Sam Wormley
What was the criteria cited by the authors?
>
> On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming.
Tampered by whom? What are the differences of the original
data and "tampered" data. What is your reference.
>
> Case in point is Darwin zero.
>
> Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations
> in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures
> in Northern Australia in 125 years.
> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG
>
> "However, the IPCC uses the �adjusted� data.
Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the
criteria cited by the researchers?
GHCN adjusts the data to
> remove what it calls �inhomogeneities�.
What are the details of these �inhomogeneities�? Do these
�inhomogeneities� reduce errors? Or do they change results
in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What
are the details.
If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate
here without your personal bias.
So, on a whim I thought I�d
> take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I
> could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home.
>
> Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN �adjusts� the data
> to remove the �inhomogeneities�. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN
> discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing
> longer records.
But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded!
The three remaining records are first �homogenized�
> and then averaged to give the �GHCN Adjusted� temperature record for
> Darwin.
Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why?
> To my great surprise, here�s what I found. To explain the full effect,
> I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point
> (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)."
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
I only see the one data set.
>
> "Before the �adjustment� by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling
> at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were
> rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2
> Celsius per century.
So this is "statistical tinkering"?
Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality?
> Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized
> Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of
> the individual station records, starting with the earliest record.
> Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized
> versions �"
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg
>
> "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We
> have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all
> agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge,
> artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.
> Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the
> adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat."
So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why?
>
> Sam,
> I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I
> post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond
> to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to
> respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero?
>
> --Mike Jr.
Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the
earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being
driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is
melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human)
causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing
up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons.
That's what I see.
Peter Webb
Its very clear what they have done, because Mike charted it for Darwin
airport. They just increased the temperatures recorded for no stated reason.
> If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate
> here without your personal bias.
>
>
> So, on a whim I thought I�d
>> take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I
>> could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home.
>>
>> Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN �adjusts� the data
>> to remove the �inhomogeneities�. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN
>> discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing
>> longer records.
>
> But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded!
>
That's up to GHCN to say. Mike has given a plausible and reasonable possible
explanation.
>
> The three remaining records are first �homogenized�
>> and then averaged to give the �GHCN Adjusted� temperature record for
>> Darwin.
>
> Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why?
>
>> To my great surprise, here�s what I found. To explain the full effect,
>> I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point
>> (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)."
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
>
> I only see the one data set.
There are two. One the actual temperatures (in blue), the other what they
said they used (in red).
Perhaps you aren't familiar vwith graphs.
>
>>
>> "Before the �adjustment� by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling
>> at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were
>> rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2
>> Celsius per century.
>
> So this is "statistical tinkering"?
>
No, its fraud.
> Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality?
>
The data set showing temperatures increasing at Darwin airport is not
correct; actually temperatures have fallen if you look at the actual
recorded temperatures.
>
>> Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized
>> Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of
>> the individual station records, starting with the earliest record.
>> Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized
>> versions �"
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg
>>
>> "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We
>> have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all
>> agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge,
>> artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.
>> Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the
>> adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat."
>
> So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why?
>
How would he know what some unnamed climatologist would think of graph he
has never seen?
What a stupid question!
>>
>> Sam,
>> I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I
>> post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond
>> to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to
>> respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero?
>>
>> --Mike Jr.
>
> Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the
> earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being
> driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is
> melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human)
> causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing
> up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons.
>
> That's what I see.
Have you ever seen graphs of actual recorded temperatures at various
locations around the world over the last 100 years, other than the graph
that Mike has provided?
Any of them show any evidence of warming? Which ones?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>But you also snipped the link to what Phil Jones said! Its like you don't
>want people to read what the head of the CRU said about AGW !
>
>So here is the link again:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
I'm astonished you keep posting the actual link to his words, and then
grossly misstate them in your own words. All I can figure is some sort
of brain damage.
Peter Webb
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:01:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>But you also snipped the link to what Phil Jones said! Its like you don't
>>want people to read what the head of the CRU said about AGW !
>>
>>So here is the link again:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
>
> I'm astonished you keep posting the actual link to his words, and then
> grossly misstate them in your own words. All I can figure is some sort
> of brain damage.
> _________________________________________________
>
I'm not astonished that you snipped my words before claiming they misstated
Phil Jones in the link.
You snipped them because you don't want anybody to check for themselves and
see you are talking shit again.
Tell me, Peterson, do you believe the earth has cooled since 2002 ? Do you
believe there have been at least three periods in the last 150 years when
temperatures have increased at about the same rate as since 1975, despite
anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule? Are you certain that the warming we are
currently experiencing has an anthropogenic component?
All simple questions about your beliefs. I just want to compare yours to
those of the head of the CRU.
<giggle>
Mike Jr
> On 2/13/10 7:35 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur...
>
> >>>>> --Mike Jr.
>
> >>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies.
>
> >>>> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci...
>
> >>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding .
>
> >> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do
> >> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the
> >> work cited in the paper:
>
> >>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci...
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Sam,
> > The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised
> > against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you
> > or you would know that. I did read your link.
>
> > "Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid
> > boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the
> > stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by
> > distance) in nearby boxes.
>
> > by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were
> > increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and
> > urban locations."
>
> > Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the
> > monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid
> > has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a
> > clear cut case of selection bias.
>
> What was the criteria cited by the authors?
>
>
>
> > On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming.
>
> Tampered by whom? What are the differences of the original
> data and "tampered" data. What is your reference.
>
>
>
> > Case in point is Darwin zero.
>
> > Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations
> > in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures
> > in Northern Australia in 125 years.
> >http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG
>
>
> Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the
> criteria cited by the researchers?
>
> GHCN adjusts the data to
>
>
> What are the details of these “inhomogeneities”? Do these
> “inhomogeneities” reduce errors? Or do they change results
> in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What
> are the details.
>
> If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate
> here without your personal bias.
>
>
> > take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I
> > could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home.
>
> > to remove the “inhomogeneities”. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN
> > discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing
> > longer records.
>
> But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded!
>
>
> > and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for
> > Darwin.
>
> Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why?
>
> > I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point
> > (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)."
>
>
> I only see the one data set.
>
>
>
> > at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were
> > rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2
> > Celsius per century.
>
> So this is "statistical tinkering"?
>
> Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality?
>
> > Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized
> > Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of
> > the individual station records, starting with the earliest record.
> > Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized
>
> >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjus...
>
> > "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We
> > have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all
> > agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge,
> > artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.
> > Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the
> > adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat."
>
> So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why?
>
>
>
> > Sam,
> > I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I
> > post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond
> > to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to
> > respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero?
>
> > --Mike Jr.
>
> Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the
> earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being
> driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is
> melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human)
> causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing
> up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons.
>
> That's what I see.
Sam,
You have got to learn to read. You ask questions that show that you
haven't read a single thing that I wrote. Look at the graphs.
BTW, you can practice reading on this:
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"
--Mike Jr.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Tell me, Peterson, do you believe the earth has cooled since 2002 ?
I don't think the question can be answered in any statistically
meaningful way.
> Do you
>believe there have been at least three periods in the last 150 years when
>temperatures have increased at about the same rate as since 1975, despite
>anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule?
Sure. What I don't believe is that this has any bearing on the question
of AGW. If you look at an interval of one year, there have been times
when the temperatures have increased at several times the rate since
1975. There have also been times when it decreased at several times the
general rate of increase. As you look at decadal scale trends, most
periods over the last 150 years have shown increases. If you look at
50-year averages, there are no decreases at all. Over the last 150
years, the average upwards trend is greater than has been seen for
thousands of years.
With a gradual increase in global temperature over a couple of
centuries, you would always expect that sort of pattern. Close to 50% of
the years will be cooler than the previous year. There is a few percent
chance that any given decade will by cooler than the previous decade.
And if you look at the temperature record, that's what you see. Also
unmistakable is the underlying long term trend, which correlates pretty
well with the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
By asking these last two questions (which have been answered many times-
all ignored by you, as I expect these will again be), you demonstrated a
serious lack of either intellectual ability or intellectual honesty.
>Are you certain that the warming we are
>currently experiencing has an anthropogenic component?
Certain? I'm certain of nothing. But I consider it extremely likely. I'd
say I'm more certain that the modern evolutionary model is correct, but
less certain that the CDM Big Bang model is correct.
>All simple questions about your beliefs. I just want to compare yours to
>those of the head of the CRU.
Well there you have it. Obviously, my beliefs are very similar to those
of the head of the CRU. Unfortunately, you don't even understand his
simple answers (and I doubt you understand mine), so your exercise in
asking again was almost certainly futile. Any discussion with you is
like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner. They basically just
stare at the wall.
_________________________________________________
Unum
>>
>> Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the
>> criteria cited by the researchers?
>>
>> GHCN adjusts the data to
>>
>>
>> What are the details of these �inhomogeneities�? Do these
>> in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What
>> are the details.
>>
>> If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate
>> here without your personal bias.
>>
>>
>>> take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I
>>> could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home.
>>
>>> to remove the �inhomogeneities�. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN
>>> discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing
>>> longer records.
>>
>> But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded!
>>
>>
>>> and then averaged to give the �GHCN Adjusted� temperature record for
>>> Darwin.
>>
>> Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why?
>>
>>> I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point
>>> (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)."
>>
>>> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-average...
>>
>> I only see the one data set.
>>
>>
>>
>>> at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were
>>> rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2
>>> Celsius per century.
>>
>> So this is "statistical tinkering"?
>>
>> Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality?
>>
>>> Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized
>>> Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of
>>> the individual station records, starting with the earliest record.
>>> Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized
Blogger garbage.
> " * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/
"The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998)
temperature reconstruction have recently been discredited by the following
peer-reviewed article"...
> * There has been no global warming since 1995
Obviously a lie.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
> * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made
> changes"
Lol, of course they have, but WTF does that have to do with anything?
Sam Wormley
> " * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
Mike - Read Section
A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al.
"Hockey Stick" crurve) has proved to be incorrect.
http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf
> * There has been no global warming since 1995
Climatology uses 30 year averages. The last decade was by far
warmer that the decade before.
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
> * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made
> changes"
>
> --Mike Jr.
Current warming trends cannot be explained by natural (non-human
activity) causes.
Sam Wormley
I'm sorry to read that you might have brain damage, Peter.
Peter Webb
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:28:08 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Tell me, Peterson, do you believe the earth has cooled since 2002 ?
>
> I don't think the question can be answered in any statistically
> meaningful way.
>
Nobody asked you about statistics.
>> Do you
>>believe there have been at least three periods in the last 150 years when
>>temperatures have increased at about the same rate as since 1975, despite
>>anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule?
>
> Sure. What I don't believe is that this has any bearing on the question
> of AGW. If you look at an interval of one year, there have been times
> when the temperatures have increased at several times the rate since
> 1975. There have also been times when it decreased at several times the
> general rate of increase. As you look at decadal scale trends, most
> periods over the last 150 years have shown increases. If you look at
> 50-year averages, there are no decreases at all. Over the last 150
> years, the average upwards trend is greater than has been seen for
> thousands of years.
>
> With a gradual increase in global temperature over a couple of
> centuries, you would always expect that sort of pattern. Close to 50% of
> the years will be cooler than the previous year. There is a few percent
> chance that any given decade will by cooler than the previous decade.
So the temperature has been increasing for over 150 years, ie since well
before AGW was a significant. There have been three previous periods of
warming in the last 150 years with rates comparable or greater than 1975,
despite anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule.
Seems like you, me and your mate Phil all agree on the above.
Hard to argue when the head of the CRU provided the actual figures showing
the earth warmed faster when anthropogenic CO2 was far smaller ...
> And if you look at the temperature record, that's what you see. Also
> unmistakable is the underlying long term trend, which correlates pretty
> well with the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I might add that CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years also correlate
very well with world ice-cream production. However, I did not ask any
questions concerning CO2, ice-cream, or dying polar bears; this is just you
waffling on about things nobody asked you about.
>
> By asking these last two questions (which have been answered many times-
> all ignored by you, as I expect these will again be), you demonstrated a
> serious lack of either intellectual ability or intellectual honesty.
>
Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least
they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an
ad-hominem attack.
So maybe you want to complain to the BBC instead?
>>Are you certain that the warming we are
>>currently experiencing has an anthropogenic component?
>
> Certain? I'm certain of nothing.
Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has
anything to do with man.
Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that it
has anything to do with man.
You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has
anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring,
but you are not.
Perhaps you should send a letter to Jones telling him that you are not
certain that warming is occuring at all, and challenging him to justify his
comments that he was certain it is real?
> But I consider it extremely likely. I'd
> say I'm more certain that the modern evolutionary model is correct, but
> less certain that the CDM Big Bang model is correct.
>
>>All simple questions about your beliefs. I just want to compare yours to
>>those of the head of the CRU.
>
> Well there you have it. Obviously, my beliefs are very similar to those
> of the head of the CRU.
Dunno:
Has the earth warmed since 2002?
Jones: No, it has cooled.
Petersen: No answer
Has the earth warmed as fast or faster on several occassions over the last
150 years as it has since 1975, despite the contribution of AGW being
miniscule at those times?
Jones: Yes
Petersen: Yes
Are you certain that the earth is warming?
Jones: Yes
Peterson: No
Are you certain that man has anything to do with it:
Jones: No
Peterson: No
You seem to agree with about 50% of the answers given by Peterson.
Which is a bit of a worry, as I assumed that Phil Jones would know something
about climate science; now that I know you disagree with much of what he
says, it is clear that Phil Jones must be wrong.
It is seldom we have an expert such as Peterson available who can set Phil
Jones straight on global warming!
> Unfortunately, you don't even understand his
> simple answers (and I doubt you understand mine), so your exercise in
> asking again was almost certainly futile. Any discussion with you is
> like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner. They basically just
> stare at the wall.
> _________________________________________________
Funny, Jones didn't see the need to launch into an ad-hominem attack when
asked the same questions by the BBC. I guess he's not a crank.
I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are
cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW. He is certain
that the earth is warming, but is not certain man has anything to do with
it. The reason he doesn't come across as an AGW crank (like you for example)
is that he is not even certain that man has anything to do with the changing
climate, so he could hardly be an AGW-crank, now could he?
Peter Webb
Huh?
I'm sorry you might have liver cancer.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least
>they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an
>ad-hominem attack.
There's not necessarily anything wrong with an ad-hominem attack. I call
you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot. What we should be
concerned with isn't ad hominem attacks themselves, but ad hominem
attacks that are used as an alternative to rational arguments. When you
pose a question, I answer it. Rationally. I'm not calling you an idiot
to dodge answering the question. The fact that you are an idiot is
totally separate from the discussion of facts and positions.
>Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has
>anything to do with man.
>Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that it
>has anything to do with man.
>
>You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has
>anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring,
>but you are not.
What do you think "not certain" means? I am not certain that the Earth
is warming, and I'm not certain that man is responsible for that
uncertain warming. I am more than 99% confident that the Earth is
warming, and more than 99% certain that man is causing it. I don't know
what numerical confidence Jones would place on his own beliefs, but I
expect from the tone of his comments that they are well up there like
mine. I'd bet that if you asked him, he's also say that his "100%"
confidence that the Earth is warming is really just shorthand for
"99%+".
You are, in fact, an idiot if you believe that "certain" and "not
certain" represent some sort of binary division of beliefs. You treat
"not certain" as if it means "doesn't believe", which is nonsense.
>Has the earth warmed since 2002?
>
>Jones: No, it has cooled.
>Petersen: No answer
Both of your "quotes" are incorrect. Jones did not say the Earth has
cooled. He said that the trend from 2002 to the present is -0.12C per
decade, but that the time interval is too short for the trend to be
statistically significant. That is hugely different from "it has
cooled". (Of course, it may actually turn out once enough data is
available that there was cooling; that doesn't mean that global warming
isn't both real and ongoing.)
And I did provide a direct answer to your direct question, "I don't
think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way."
That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and is substantially similar to
Jones's answer, just in different words.
>I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are
>cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW.
He certainly believes in AGW. He says so in the linked interview. He is
asked if it is reasonable based on the evidence to believe that global
warming isn't predominantly manmade, and explicitly says "no". He is
asked if natural influences could have contributed significantly to
global warming, and he explicitly says that natural influences alone
should have produced cooling over the period where warming was observed.
When asked how confident he is that humans are mainly responsible for
global warming, he states that he agrees with the IPCC conclusion that
the evidence suggests that most warming in the last 50 years is the
result of human activity.
You are certainly an idiot if you don't recognize that these answers
mean he "believes" in AGW in the sense that any intellectually honest
person "believes" in anything: considering it likely based on the
available evidence.
_________________________________________________
Jax
>
> Mike - Read Section
> A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al.
> "Hockey Stick" crurve) has proved to be incorrect.
>
>
The other 2 articles provided swissre.com were fair representations of
scientific studies. The section you referenced, A3, is not. If you
are truly an unbiased reviewer, you should easily name 3 errors.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:33:46 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least
>>they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an
>>ad-hominem attack.
>
> There's not necessarily anything wrong with an ad-hominem attack. I call
> you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot. What we should be
> concerned with isn't ad hominem attacks themselves, but ad hominem
> attacks that are used as an alternative to rational arguments. When you
> pose a question, I answer it. Rationally. I'm not calling you an idiot
> to dodge answering the question. The fact that you are an idiot is
> totally separate from the discussion of facts and positions.
>
Yes, like I said, at least they got straight answers from Phil, and he
didn't just launch into an ad-hominem attack like you just did.
>>Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has
>>anything to do with man.
>>Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that
>>it
>>has anything to do with man.
>>
>>You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has
>>anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring,
>>but you are not.
>
You said you agreed with me, in fact, in that neither of us is certain that
the warming is real or that it is caused by man.
> What do you think "not certain" means? I am not certain that the Earth
> is warming, and I'm not certain that man is responsible for that
> uncertain warming. I am more than 99% confident that the Earth is
> warming, and more than 99% certain that man is causing it. I don't know
> what numerical confidence Jones would place on his own beliefs, but I
> expect from the tone of his comments that they are well up there like
> mine. I'd bet that if you asked him, he's also say that his "100%"
> confidence that the Earth is warming is really just shorthand for
> "99%+".
>
Funny, now you are inventing things you wish Jones had said. Normally you
just invent things that you wish I had said.
Jones is certain that the earth is warming. He is not certain it is anything
to do with man.
You are not certain that either the earth is warming or than man is
responsible.
You are clearly some kind of AGW-denier, probably working for a tobacco
company or oil company.
> You are, in fact, an idiot if you believe that "certain" and "not
> certain" represent some sort of binary division of beliefs. You treat
> "not certain" as if it means "doesn't believe", which is nonsense.
>
Hey, I'm just quoting what Jones said in writing to the BBC. He didn't
mention whether he believed it or not, and neither did I, and you are
apparently (again) inventing imaginary things that Jones did not in fact
even discuss let alone say.
>>Has the earth warmed since 2002?
>>
>>Jones: No, it has cooled.
>>Petersen: No answer
>
> Both of your "quotes" are incorrect. Jones did not say the Earth has
> cooled.
Funny, again you snipped both what I said and what Phil said. But fear not!
I went to the link you cust, and here is what Phil said:
"C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been
statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is
negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically
significant."
Ie It has cooled at a rate of 0.12 degrees since 2002, according to Jones.
See! Just snipping my posts doesn't actually change what is said!
> He said that the trend from 2002 to the present is -0.12C per
> decade, but that the time interval is too short for the trend to be
> statistically significant. That is hugely different from "it has
> cooled".
How, exactly? If the trend line since 2002 is -0.12 degrees per decade, how
is that not cooler?
You know about negative numbers, right?
> (Of course, it may actually turn out once enough data is
> available that there was cooling; that doesn't mean that global warming
> isn't both real and ongoing.)
>
Of course, as you are not certain either of these is correct anyway (unlike
Phil Jones, who is certain the earth is warming), then another few years
data is unlikely to convince you.
> And I did provide a direct answer to your direct question, "I don't
> think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way."
> That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and is substantially similar to
> Jones's answer, just in different words.
>
Funny, I wanted to know if you agreed with Jones words, not if you agreed
with some diferent words that you wish he had said instead.
>>I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are
>>cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW.
>
> He certainly believes in AGW. He says so in the linked interview. He is
> asked if it is reasonable based on the evidence to believe that global
> warming isn't predominantly manmade, and explicitly says "no".
No, he doesn't.
Again, you are making up things that you wish Jones had said, and responding
to them instead of what he actually did say. Much easier, or course, if you
snip the link to the original interview, because its not obvious you are
simply invernting things.
Here is the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Here is what Jones actually said:
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are
mainly responsible?
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."
>He is
> asked if natural influences could have contributed significantly to
> global warming, and he explicitly says that natural influences alone
> should have produced cooling over the period where warming was observed.
> When asked how confident he is that humans are mainly responsible for
> global warming, he states that he agrees with the IPCC conclusion that
> the evidence suggests that most warming in the last 50 years is the
> result of human activity.
But not that he is certain. He is not however certain that the earth is
warming, just not that humans are involved.
I provided his exact words above.
>
> You are certainly an idiot if you don't recognize that these answers
> mean he "believes" in AGW in the sense that any intellectually honest
> person "believes" in anything: considering it likely based on the
> available evidence.
> _________________________________________________
>
Dunno. He doesn't actually say that. He does say he is certain that the
earth is warming, but refused to say he was certain man had anything to do
with it.
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
Peter Webb
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b78ba56$0$18229$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Whoops, sorry, he is not even "confident" that man has anything to with
global warming.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I provided his exact words above.
Yet you lack the wits to understand them. A weakness that explains your
lack of comprehension of any subject you have discussed in this forum.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:06:38 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I provided his exact words above.
>
> Yet you lack the wits to understand them. A weakness that explains your
> lack of comprehension of any subject you have discussed in this forum.
> _________________________________________________
>
Hey, Peterson, just because Phil Jones is not convinced that man has
anything to do with global warming is no reason to snip his exact words.
Here they are again:
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are
mainly responsible?
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."
Here is the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Are you confident the climate has warmed? Are you confident that man is
responsible (unlike Phil Jones)?
Hey, why don't you snip all this and just launch into some ad-hominem attack
against Phil Jones? I am, after all, just reporting what he said; nothing to
do with me!
Sam Wormley
So far my liver checks out OK, but who knows--none of us immortal.
Did you hear the good news--Global warming is happening totally
independent of government panels and politicians. Actually I don't
look at any fast climate changes as "good" as they tend to impact
agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns and shifting seasons,
disrupting life patterns.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I am, after all, just reporting what he said; nothing to
>do with me!
You're mentally ill. That's all I can conclude. It would be cruel to
continue this, since it only serves to further embarrass you.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:02:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I am, after all, just reporting what he said; nothing to
>>do with me!
>
> You're mentally ill. That's all I can conclude. It would be cruel to
> continue this, since it only serves to further embarrass you.
> _________________________________________________
>
No, Phil Jones, head of the CRU, must be mentally ill. All I did was quote
what he said.
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
So, unlike Phil Jones, are you confident that the warming is due to man?