Global Warming Director Phil Jones, Exposed As A Fraud

FrankVW,

There was an interesting paper out recently that used Watt’s information and found that the badly sited weather station had a cooling bias, and so couldn’t be responsible for a warming bias:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

The North Pole blog post shows how easily scientific reports get misreported, as it is titled:

“Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, not air temperature”

BUT, nowhere in the quoted news release does it state this, in fact – quite the opposite:

While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event, scientists are just beginning to learn more about the ocean’s impact — in particular, the influence of currents — on the ice sheet.

As to the Daily Mail article, it seems to be just a rehash of the stories posted by ATFS_Crash at the start of the thread, and just as eroneous. I mean, look at the claim:

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

That is just wrong – because admitting that the trend is not quite statistically significant is not the same as saying there is no warming. Absence of rock-solid stats for one thing does not mean another option is certain.

As an aside, statistical significance requires 95% confidence that the trend is caused by what you’re attributing it to. In Jones’ case he says it’s just below the significance level – so he’s only around 90% sure that the warming is man-made from 1995. That’s pretty good in my book.

On the suject of global warming (or lack thereof), I would like to submit these links to your appreciation.

First, one about how the data is collected, and what changed since the 70’s:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/

And some issues about the weather stations’ locations:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/christy-and-mckittrick-in-the-uk-times-doubts-on-station-data/#more-16431
I could not find a link, but I heard the researcher who analyzed these stations say on the radio that some stations were places on asphalt, or next to large A/C units, or now containing electronic trasmiters to send the readings, placed just next ot the thermometers. This will of course affect the temperature readings.

Another interesting article about the ice caps at the north pole: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/greenland-glaciers-melt-due-to-sea-current-change-not-air-temperature/#more-16481

There also is an article about the south pole, but I haven’t read it.

I also found this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

What I tried to post yesterday was something like…not many people would disagree that the earths climate does change,but we might disagree on the cause of it.
I remember a few years ago the guys who flew the vimy to australia commenting on how difficult the navigation could be in some countries owing to the slash/burn deforestation,there may be lots of man made reasons for affecting the earth but we can be sure that our poxy little island contributes very little.
Naughty boys manipulating figures is just plain dumb,also history has shown us that politicians have a 100% record for telling porkies – I automatically disbelieve everything they say…sad state of affairs but they have a huge problem nowadays convincing voters to bother voting,they (politicians) look after number 1.

regards baz

No problem with any of that lot. The warming bit I mean is the crumbling ice. But as you say, it’s variables. If the equator cools maybe the poles warm, to balance. This planet does a lot of self balancing.

Oil, it will run out, but when we’ve got the 8 billion barrels out of the South Atlantic (May have to give another lesson to the Argentines first) we can then get under the Antarctic with the snake drills. Several more years yet. China will have a lot of oil too but that is going to take some stealing.

I wonder if the keen and blinkered adherents of the MMGW religion are beginning to have doubts. If only the Obamas and EU leaders did we might save ourselves being taxed out of existence by their hairbrained schemes. Too much to hope for, I suppose, politicians admitting they got it wrong.

A politician is like my wife. They have 2 rules: Rule 1, they are always right. Rule 2, when they are wrong see rule 1 😡

I’m not discrediting the story, but I’ll go on record as saying I can’t stand their journalism.

If you’re not discrediting their story (i.e. their journalism) but “can’t stand” them…it sounds that you don’t like their politics (i.e. what stories they cover).

In graduate school I did a great deal of media content analysis…and it taught me what to look for.
Here’s what I’ve found…

I compare several news sites…most of Fox’s daily news (daily happenings, crime, disasters, etc.) is interchangeable with the others.
A lot of Fox’s comes from the regular sources…AP, Reuters…and a lot comes from international (UK, Australia) papers that are part of Murdoch’s empire.

The only big difference I see in Fox is the selection of some of their stories.
Fox’s tends to cover stories (like this one on climate change controversy and seemingly a lot on alleged UN corruption) that other news outlets don’t.
The stuff theuy report is real..not fabricated…it just isn’t covered by CNN, the New York Times, and NBC/ABC/CBS.
Just because it takes a contrarian view doesn’t make its reporting any less accurate.
And some of the stories that Fox “breaks” later become large (or visible) enough that the other media outlets do similar stories.

Stil

l, my point remains – why aren’t the nations whose best interest it is in to discredit AGM doing so?

What countries?
Perhaps they do and other media doesn’t cover it.

Joey. When are you going to take the hint and stop adding a quote of the entire post directly above your answer? It is not necessary and disrupts the flow, just as I am doing now. Moggy

As I suggested in my earlier post, they “playing along” so that they aren’t rejected on the top table, but not one of those nations has made committments to any of the Protocols, so far as I am aware. And they are unlikely to do so. It’s called playing politics. Unfortunately for all of us the stakes are rather high, but, hey, what do a handful of here today, gone tomorrow politicians care. Some of them would like to make their mark on history, some are along for the ride.

Don’t discredit the story because you don’t like the source….any more than conservatives shouldn’t discredit a story for the same reason.

I’m not discrediting the story, but I’ll go on record as saying I can’t stand their journalism.

Still, my point remains – why aren’t the nations whose best interest it is in to discredit AGM doing so?

And as a side note, it’s interesting that many of these sources come from fox news, given that it is so openly biased that it’s virtually the mouthpeice for the republican party.

Not to defend them, they’re big boys…

But they would argue that they’re the only major U.S. news outlet that follows the story.
They would probably say that the rest of the media is “liberal” and buys into the the EU/Obama governments agenda (“lets figure out how we can raise taxes with this as a reason”) on it.

Don’t discredit the story because you don’t like the source….any more than conservatives shouldn’t discredit a story for the same reason.

Also, I believe on the UK, The Times has also done a lot of reporting on the matter. In other works, Fox is not alone.

Complete quote of posting directly above removed. Please don’t. Moggy

Those are the key words” being pressured to reduce their consumption”. And they are making conciliatory noises but there is no consensus that they will actually abide by any protocols.

I am not sure who is patronising who. It is a minority of scientists and others who fundementally disagree with the majority of other scientists and politicians as to a) whether or not man’s activities affect global warming and b) whether there is any current global warming at all.

I can only speak personally but I don’t recall reading anything on Fox News. Whether or not it is a mouthpiece or not seems irrelevant since the Republicans were hardly entrenched in opposition, until recently, when both Democrats and Republicans have reacted to the growing amount of contrary scientific evidence.

I’m assuming that the governments of China, India, Brazil and other developing economies whose growth is dependent on fossil fuels, who are being pressured to reduce their consuption of these fuels to reduce their CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, are in on a great global warming scam then?

Given that they have a vested interest in disproving the arguement that anthroprogenic global warming is happening, so that they can continue the speed of economic growth they have been experiencing, why are they going along blindly with it all?

I’m all for finding the truth of the matter, I’m just sick of the patronising attitude taken by so many people about it all.

And as a side note, it’s interesting that many of these sources come from fox news, given that it is so openly biased that it’s virtually the mouthpeice for the republican party.

I think fuller quotes from the BBC Source will prove enlightening:

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.

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.

Note that Phil Jones doesn’t admit to any global cooling, despite what ATFS_Crash asserts.

For those who are interested, there’s a good explanation by analogy as to why readings become more statistically significant given a longer measurement time span HERE

I just posted a reply,but my work system would not let it through :rolleyes:

Paring away your sarcasm, what you would be able to do is to conserve energy sensibly and rationally, for entirely different reasons, and not pay through the nose for massive reductions in fossil fuel burning, huge investments in inefficient renewable energy systems, and carbon trading cash cows.

And as for your worries about melting ice-caps and increasing CO2, they will be quietly disipated as year on year they are found to be inaccurate and irrelevant, or rather more inaccurate and irrelevant than they are already proving to be.

Didn’t I see another global warming thread here when I was looking through the forums after joining? I am sure it is full of opposing argument.:D

That’s really fantastic!

We can forget all our worries about melting ice caps and increasing CO2 levels, burn fossil fuels as much as we like, junk all the hybrids and go back to V8s without a care in the world.

Brilliant news, thank you for sharing.

Moggy

I wouldnt worry too much joey…they will merely find some other cash cow excuse to tax the A55 off us 😉
As I said previously…those of us who are a little older still remember the dire warnings of the impending ice age just a few years before the climate change cr@p started up.

what a bunch of amateurs :rolleyes:

Exactly. After all, the now discredited Chairman of the “Holy” IPCC is a railway engineer so he will certainly be right on the button as far as climate science is concerned!

I wonder if the keen and blinkered adherents of the MMGW religion are beginning to have doubts. If only the Obamas and EU leaders did we might save ourselves being taxed out of existence by their hairbrained schemes. Too much to hope for, I suppose, politicians admitting they got it wrong.

I wouldnt worry too much joey…they will merely find some other cash cow excuse to tax the A55 off us 😉
As I said previously…those of us who are a little older still remember the dire warnings of the impending ice age just a few years before the climate change cr@p started up.

what a bunch of amateurs :rolleyes:

I wonder if the keen and blinkered adherents of the MMGW religion are beginning to have doubts. If only the Obamas and EU leaders did we might save ourselves being taxed out of existence by their hairbrained schemes. Too much to hope for, I suppose, politicians admitting they got it wrong.