Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,647 comments
  • 225,387 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
I probably won't believe in global warming for a while. It's to young a science to make any rock solid conclusions about it. Plus after the leaked emails from the UK during the coolest year the US has ever been through, It doesn't really help your theory.

I guess you completely missed my post before, so here it is again. In big.

You're missing the point. Global warming is a trend. Given two extremes, simplified to cold and hot, the average temperatures are heading towards the hot extreme. That isn't to say that temperatures don't fluctuate, as sometimes they do.

If you have a 1 degree rise every year for three years (hypothetical), then a two degree fall for a year, and then a one degree rise for another two years, that's still an increase of 3 degrees from where you started. Sure, there was a year of "cooling", but if you considered every year individually then all you'd get are fluctuations rather than an overall picture.

The global warming trend is also averaged globally. Just because some areas of the globe are getting cooler it doesn't mean that temperatures as a whole aren't rising. Think of it as having all the radiators in your house on, and having a window open in one room. That room will get cooler, sure, but on average the house is getting warmer.

The bit in bold is especially important to my point.

That the globe is warming isn't actually up for debate. It is warming. The real question is whether humans are solely responsible - this isn't yet clear.
 
I guess you completely missed my post before, so here it is again. In big.



The bit in bold is especially important to my point.

That the globe is warming isn't actually up for debate. It is warming. The real question is whether humans are solely responsible - this isn't yet clear.

Sure, but like I said, It's to young a science. In the 40-50 years of research, scientists have concluded that the average global temperature is rising, and we are to blame. You have to give it more time. 40-50 years of research on such a massive experiment is not nearly long enough to make any solid conclusions. For all we know, the earths current temperature could be below average.
 
Sure, but like I said, It's to young a science. In the 40-50 years of research, scientists have concluded that the average global temperature is rising, and we are to blame. You have to give it more time. 40-50 years of research on such a massive experiment is not nearly long enough to make any solid conclusions. For all we know, the earths current temperature could be below average.

So when does it become convincing? After 50 years? After another 50 years? After another 50 years? Just like with Evolution? We need another 1 million years of evidence for it to be definitive? :lol:

Okay. We'll talk about this again over the next ice age. I'll bring the bison steak. :lol:

-

There is no doubt that the climate is changing. There is no doubt we do play a contributory part. The only question is: How big a contribution do we make, and should we do something about it, and is it worth it to actually do what we plan to do?

In the end, all the political bickering over CO2 emissions that are a small percentage of the small percentage contributed by one factor towards climate change seems silly to me, when the total effects of human habitation, the food we eat, the ecologies we destroy and the babies we make far outstrip that.

We could be looking at working at topsoil repair and reforestation in some parts of the world... spending those billions upon billions of dollars to encourage better farming practices (in the third-world and in developed nations) to preserve those resources.... dump nutrients into the ocean to encourage algae growth... (seriously... Algae are carbon-fixers).

Instead, we're arguing at producing more and more expensive transportation solutions for more and more people, when what we should be doing is reorganizing communities so that people don't really have to motor that far to find work or leisure. Or maybe not even have to motor at all to go to work... encourage more e-commerce, more virtual back-offices, etcetera.
 
So when does it become convincing? After 50 years? After another 50 years? After another 50 years? Just like with Evolution? We need another 1 million years of evidence for it to be definitive? :lol:

Okay. We'll talk about this again over the next ice age. I'll bring the bison steak. :lol:

-

There is no doubt that the climate is changing. There is no doubt we do play a contributory part. The only question is: How big a contribution do we make, and should we do something about it, and is it worth it to actually do what we plan to do?

In the end, all the political bickering over CO2 emissions that are a small percentage of the small percentage contributed by one factor towards climate change seems silly to me, when the total effects of human habitation, the food we eat, the ecologies we destroy and the babies we make far outstrip that.

We could be looking at working at topsoil repair and reforestation in some parts of the world... spending those billions upon billions of dollars to encourage better farming practices (in the third-world and in developed nations) to preserve those resources.... dump nutrients into the ocean to encourage algae growth... (seriously... Algae are carbon-fixers).

Instead, we're arguing at producing more and more expensive transportation solutions for more and more people, when what we should be doing is reorganizing communities so that people don't really have to motor that far to find work or leisure. Or maybe not even have to motor at all to go to work... encourage more e-commerce, more virtual back-offices, etcetera.

I couldn't pin point a specific time in the future where I could definitively say "there is such a thing as global warming". The earth though is millions of years old, and scientists have decided that within 50 years of research, that there is now global warning???

Here's an example-

It's like a thermometer in a field. One day, it might be cool, and the thermometer will slightly drop in temperature. The next day it may become dry and hot, and the thermometer may slightly rise in temperature. As this random cycle goes on for years, you come along one day and think, "hmmm, maybe if I record the temperature levels of this thermometer for a few days, I can determine the climate here. Over those next few days, it never drops in temperature and remains dry and hot. So you leave the field with some data showing that it's only hot and dry in this field, therefore, you conclude that this field can't always be dry and hot, and that there must be some sort of hole in the ozone causing this heat streak. When in truth you didn't stay in the field nearly long enough to gather any real data. You simply happen to come to that field on a week that happened to be hot outside.
 
I'm guessing here, but maybe, just maybe, professional climatologists have considered that issue already.
 

Is there recent evidence to suggest it's cooling again? As in long-term (as in thousands of years rather than tens)?

I was under the impression that, man made or not, the globe was warming as we're still technically in the warming, "thawing" period following the last ice-age circa 10k years ago?
 
I probably won't believe in global warming for a while. It's to young a science to make any rock solid conclusions about it. Plus after the leaked emails from the UK during the coolest year the US has ever been through, It doesn't really help your theory.
What this article says here may balance out the cold winter. Apparently 2010 will be the hottest year on record according to experts...at least in Britain and Ireland.
 
What this article says here may balance out the cold winter. Apparently 2010 will be the hottest year on record according to experts...at least in Britain and Ireland.

So why isn't the rest of the world preaching this? Because those countries don't imply the same taxes. Plus why would they predict the hottest year on record when 2010 will also be our greenest year on record? Sounds like this whole climate change is not within our control, no matter how anti-green we are.
 
Is there recent evidence to suggest it's cooling again? As in long-term (as in thousands of years rather than tens)?

I was under the impression that, man made or not, the globe was warming as we're still technically in the warming, "thawing" period following the last ice-age circa 10k years ago?

Hard to say when that will end. I'm making a distinction between reconstructed temperature data and predicted temperatures. The whole contention in the global warming debate (or much of it anyway) is in the predictions. Global temperature has gone down recently (not a ton, but down). This is not the predicted trend. We will eventually see whether it is noise or an incorrect prediction.
 
Is there recent evidence to suggest it's cooling again? As in long-term (as in thousands of years rather than tens)?

I was under the impression that, man made or not, the globe was warming as we're still technically in the warming, "thawing" period following the last ice-age circa 10k years ago?

Actually, paleoclimate data shows that in the last 1000 years or so, there was a very slight negative trend i.e. cooling, until roughly the beginning of the last century, when a marked deviation from that trend began. Since then, there has been a much more pronounced warming trend.

To say that global temperatures have "gone down" in recent years is to overstate the significance of year on year changes and ignore what is important - longer term trends. While the previous decade did not produce the sort of year-upon-year increases that some people obviously expect, the decade was the warmest in the measured record by some margin. This is a specific prediction that validates the warming hypothesis. That 1998 was unusually warm, even for what was also the warmest decade on record at the time, is a convenient yet misleading benchmark for denialists to use in order to make the unjustified claim that the following decade has been colder, when infact it has been nothing of the sort.

Sam48
Are you being sarcastic?
Yes. It really amazes me how people like yourself can casually dismiss '50 years of research' as if it is too short a period of time to understand anything, armed with nothing more substantive than your own incredulity.
 
To say that global temperatures have "gone down" in recent years is to overstate the significance of year on year changes and ignore what is important - longer term trends. While the previous decade did not produce the sort of year-upon-year increases that some people obviously expect, the decade was the warmest in the measured record by some margin. This is a specific prediction that validates the warming hypothesis. That 1998 was unusually warm, even for what was also the warmest decade on record at the time, is a convenient yet misleading benchmark for denialists to use in order to make the unjustified claim that the following decade has been colder, when infact it has been nothing of the sort.

Imagine for a moment that you're developing a model in the year 1998. There has been a sharp, practically year-on-year warming trend. You're ready to pronounce global warming a reality and role out models that predict a similar rise in temperatures over the next 10 years.

10 years later the temperatures are still high but the trend is wrong. They've decreased somewhat from the peak.

Is that 10 years a blip? Is it noise? Or were the trends wrong. We don't know.

Yes. It really amazes me how people like yourself can casually dismiss '50 years of research' as if it is too short a period of time to understand anything, armed with nothing more substantive than your own incredulity.

We've been researching the climate for more than 50 years - we've been studying it since the dawn of humanity. For thousands of years man has tried to predict the weather - and for thousands of years he has failed. Our climate models are still infantile compared to what they need to be. I attended a talk at a research lab that is doing a great deal of climate science by one of the worlds leading climate scientist during which he explained that we don't know if clouds contribute a net positive or negative influence on temperature.

They don't even know the sign.... clouds....

That's basic stuff. It reflects heat back into space and it traps heat in to the surface. You'd think if we understood things to the degree that so many people claim that we'd have figured out such a basic variable.

Now, maybe in the last year we've finally tackled the cloud problem and figured out the friggin SIGN of their influence - but I rather doubt it. I'm stunned at the level of trust in climate scientists predictions when virtually none of them are validated AFTER the fact, and when so many simple variables in the atmosphere are a mystery.

For the record I'd like to remind readers that I am not a denier of global warming. I'm simply a skeptic. I do not have an opinion on whether human beings are raising the temperature of the planet. I'm simply not yet convinced that scientists studying the matter have as firm a grasp as they claim.
 
Last edited:
Hard to say when that will end. I'm making a distinction between reconstructed temperature data and predicted temperatures. The whole contention in the global warming debate (or much of it anyway) is in the predictions. Global temperature has gone down recently (not a ton, but down). This is not the predicted trend. We will eventually see whether it is noise or an incorrect prediction.

Ah right, understood. Thanks for clarifying 👍
 
Imagine for a moment that you're developing a model in the year 1998. There has been a sharp, practically year-on-year warming trend. You're ready to pronounce global warming a reality and role out models that predict a similar rise in temperatures over the next 10 years. 10 years later the temperatures are still high but the trend is wrong. They've decreased somewhat from the peak. Is that 10 years a blip? Is it noise? Or were the trends wrong. We don't know.
You imply that the 00's were predicted to show the same pattern of steady increase as seen in 90's, but because this didn't happen, the hypothesis behind that prediction is invalidated. The big problem with this is that it simply wasn't the case - no such prediction was made. So the last decade didn't look much like the 90's in that it didn't show any significant trend or reproduce the same upward trend of some previous decades. But this wasn't at all unusual, and neither was it completely unexpected, nor contrary to the notion that natural variability is capable of masking a sustained long-term warming trend for periods of a decade or more.

But even despite this lack of a warming trend (if you can call it a trend, since a single decade is not long enough to establish a meaningful trend anyway) the last decade was still the warmest in the recent observed record by some margin. This is an important fact that you seem to be deliberately ignoring in favour of an overemphasis on a lack of year on year increases. In other words, because warming is not occuring in exactly the manner you believe it should, doesn't mean that it is not happening or that climate prediction is completely impossible. The question remains, however, what would invalidate the hypothesis? That the lack of warming extends beyond 2010? Or beyond 2020? I'd go with the latter, if not the former. Put it this way, if this decade demonstrates a significant downward deviation from the previously observed decadal-scale warming trend, then I reckon the warming hypothesis is in serious trouble. But what would "validate" the hypothesis? If the 10's turn out to be the warmest decade on record, hotter than the 00's? I'd consider that a pretty good validation. And indeed, I consider the fact that the 00's were the warmest decade in the recent record a pretty good validation of the warming hypothesis, especially given the conditions that occured in that time frame (reducing solar activity etc.).

We've been researching the climate for more than 50 years - we've been studying it since the dawn of humanity. For thousands of years man has tried to predict the weather - and for thousands of years he has failed. Our climate models are still infantile compared to what they need to be...
'Climate prediction' and 'Methods for observing current and reconstructing past climate' are very different disciplines. But while the former may still be a "young science", the latter is most certainly not. You call climate models 'infantile', but this is an exaggeration. Obviously, they are not perfect - they never will be, given that climate is inherently unpredictable to atleast some extent. But this belies the fact that climate models can and are of alteast some value, and do possess the potential for atleast some level of predictive skill, despite the inherent uncertainties (which can atleast be factored in and modified, as and when more information becomes available).

But to imply that climate science as a whole is still incapable of meaningful data is just wrong. We now have satellites measuring solar activity directly, satellites observing cloud coverage, satellites measuring the effect of ice mass losses on the Earth's gravitational field. We now have multiple sources of data that enable climate reconstructions to be made considerably more reliably than ever before. It would be quite unfair to equate the inherent uncertainty of climate prediction with the statement "climate science is incapable of coming to any solid conclusions", and even more unfair to dismiss the massive progress in the field in the last few decades as incapable of producing any meaningful results.

On the subject of clouds, it is important to make a distinction between the effect of clouds on climate per se, and the predicted change in cloud cover in a warming regime, and hence the sign of their feedback effect. The two things are not the same... arguably, it is the latter that is of greater uncertainty. But currently, there is little evidence to support the idea that clouds will generate a negative feedback effect in a warming regime like that being observed. Indeed, a recent study published in Science shows a positive feedback effect due to reduced low-level cloud cover in a warming regime, based on observational data. While clouds remain a source of great uncertainty, it is important to remember that they are just one factor in determining the overall climate, and are neither the sole, dominant or most significant factor, and shouldn't be considered as a factor confounding our understanding of all others.
 
You imply that the 00's were predicted to show the same pattern of steady increase as seen in 90's, but because this didn't happen, the hypothesis behind that prediction is invalidated. The big problem with this is that it simply wasn't the case - no such prediction was made. So the last decade didn't look much like the 90's in that it didn't show any significant trend or reproduce the same upward trend of some previous decades. But this wasn't at all unusual, and neither was it completely unexpected, nor contrary to the notion that natural variability is capable of masking a sustained long-term warming trend for periods of a decade or more.

But even despite this lack of a warming trend (if you can call it a trend, since a single decade is not long enough to establish a meaningful trend anyway) the last decade was still the warmest in the recent observed record by some margin. This is an important fact that you seem to be deliberately ignoring in favour of an overemphasis on a lack of year on year increases. In other words, because warming is not occuring in exactly the manner you believe it should, doesn't mean that it is not happening or that climate prediction is completely impossible. The question remains, however, what would invalidate the hypothesis? That the lack of warming extends beyond 2010? Or beyond 2020? I'd go with the latter, if not the former. Put it this way, if this decade demonstrates a significant downward deviation from the previously observed decadal-scale warming trend, then I reckon the warming hypothesis is in serious trouble. But what would "validate" the hypothesis? If the 10's turn out to be the warmest decade on record, hotter than the 00's? I'd consider that a pretty good validation. And indeed, I consider the fact that the 00's were the warmest decade in the recent record a pretty good validation of the warming hypothesis, especially given the conditions that occured in that time frame (reducing solar activity etc.).

I'm not sure I really disagree with any of that - except that I'm not impressed with the fact that the fall from the peak hasn't been as fast as the rise to the peak was - resulting in a hotter decade for the 00's than the 90's. Still, since we're in generally violent agreement on this point, I'll just leave it at that.



'Climate prediction' and 'Methods for observing current and reconstructing past climate' are very different disciplines. But while the former may still be a "young science", the latter is most certainly not. You call climate models 'infantile', but this is an exaggeration. Obviously, they are not perfect - they never will be, given that climate is inherently unpredictable to atleast some extent. But this belies the fact that climate models can and are of alteast some value, and do possess the potential for atleast some level of predictive skill, despite the inherent uncertainties (which can atleast be factored in and modified, as and when more information becomes available).

But to imply that climate science as a whole is still incapable of meaningful data is just wrong. We now have satellites measuring solar activity directly, satellites observing cloud coverage, satellites measuring the effect of ice mass losses on the Earth's gravitational field. We now have multiple sources of data that enable climate reconstructions to be made considerably more reliably than ever before. It would be quite unfair to equate the inherent uncertainty of climate prediction with the statement "climate science is incapable of coming to any solid conclusions", and even more unfair to dismiss the massive progress in the field in the last few decades as incapable of producing any meaningful results.

On the subject of clouds, it is important to make a distinction between the effect of clouds on climate per se, and the predicted change in cloud cover in a warming regime, and hence the sign of their feedback effect. The two things are not the same... arguably, it is the latter that is of greater uncertainty. But currently, there is little evidence to support the idea that clouds will generate a negative feedback effect in a warming regime like that being observed. Indeed, a recent study published in Science shows a positive feedback effect due to reduced low-level cloud cover in a warming regime, based on observational data. While clouds remain a source of great uncertainty, it is important to remember that they are just one factor in determining the overall climate, and are neither the sole, dominant or most significant factor, and shouldn't be considered as a factor confounding our understanding of all others.

It's an illustration/example of ONE fundamental piece of knowledge that still eludes us. When you're trying to predict the tiny temperature shifts that we are, that kind of lack of knowledge is important. I stand by the term "infantile" when it comes to our predictive capabilities.

You and I will continue to wait for the kind of validation you talk about earlier in this post. While we wait I will continue to be skeptical, and you will continue to call for action based on these theories. For some reason we simply seem to have a different standard of evidence here.
 
Looks like the East Anglia emails issue won't go away. There is nothing declaring their findings wrong, but they have revealed some legal issues.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.

Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.

A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine.

The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.

In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”

He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”

Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.”

The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations.”
So, it looks like they get away without legal consequences due to a statute of limitations. Maybe some wouldn't be as questioning of their motives if they weren't willing to break the law in order to prevent skeptics from having access to their data.
 
You imply that the 00's were predicted to show the same pattern of steady increase as seen in 90's, but because this didn't happen, the hypothesis behind that prediction is invalidated. The big problem with this is that it simply wasn't the case - no such prediction was made. So the last decade didn't look much like the 90's in that it didn't show any significant trend or reproduce the same upward trend of some previous decades. But this wasn't at all unusual, and neither was it completely unexpected, nor contrary to the notion that natural variability is capable of masking a sustained long-term warming trend for periods of a decade or more.
Oddly enough, a climate scientist for NOAA says that it is a reasonable question. And then she does some science to show what possible natural variable was missed or unexpectedly changed in the prediction models.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123075836&ft=1&f=1001

Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming
by Richard Harris

A new study helps explain why the planet didn't warm up dramatically over the course of the last decade, even though the gases that cause global warming increased dramatically.

Scientists have identified a surprising phenomenon ten miles above our heads that explains part of this unexpected pause in warming.

"People very reasonably have asked me why is it that in the last decade, it just doesn't look it got that much warmer, when CO2 has continued to increase, and in fact has increased quite fast," says Susan Solomon at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. So she set out to find an answer.

Scientists say they don't expect every year to be hotter than the one before because there's lots of natural variability in the climate. Tropical ocean patterns called El Niño's and La Niña's can have strong warming, or cooling effects. The sun even gets slightly brighter or dimmer.

And now, Solomon pinpoints another cause in a study published online in Science Magazine. It has to do with vapor way up high, in the stratosphere.

"There have been some surprising changes in stratospheric water vapor that have really packed a wallop as far as surface climate goes," she says.

Less Stratospheric Water Means Less Warming

It turns out that starting in the year 2000, a narrow layer of the stratosphere dried out quite rapidly. And water in the atmosphere traps heat, like glass in a greenhouse. So less stratospheric water means less warming.

"It's amazing that the stratosphere, which is so far removed from the surface, can exert such a big effect," Solomon says.

In fact, she calculates that the loss of water in the stratosphere has offset about a quarter of the warming that would otherwise have occurred.

"I hasten to say it is not the whole reason there has been so little obvious warming in the last decade, but I think it's probably part of it."

Solomon figures that the stratosphere is dry because there have been fewer towering thunderstorms in the tropics to push water up there.

A Temporary Remedy To A Long-Term Problem

Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M University says this is almost certainly a temporary state of affairs.

"This can't keep cooling or offsetting carbon dioxide forever," he says. For one thing, the stratosphere can only get so dry. For another, the weather patterns that caused the stratosphere to dry out are bound to change.

So this is clearly part of a shorter term variation in the climate. Dessler compares it with the gyrations of the stock market.

"You've got day to day or month to month ups and downs, but there's this long term trend, whether it's going up or down, and that's really what you care about — in the stock market and in the climate," he says.

Still, it's very useful to identify the factors that drive the short-term ups and downs. That way you aren't fooled into thinking that a temporary change is actually part of a long-term trend.

"You can often be confused with what looks like a trend, that may go on for a long time, but turns out not to be a trend," he says. "In the housing market, that's the problem in a nutshell. People saw it was going up and thought it was going up forever, but it wasn't."

The long-term trend of climate change is obvious. The last decade is the warmest since temperature record-keeping began (in fact, 2009 was one of the warmest years ever recorded). And that decade was hotter than the 1990s, the 1990s were hotter than the 1980s, and so on.

Susan Solomon says the science behind that long term trend is well understood. Water in the stratosphere is not driving that trend, "but it's really helpful and fascinating, I think, to better understand the ups and downs that may go on from one year to another, from one decade to another. There's a lot more to understand there
I like this Solomon lady. Instead of arguing about skeptics questions she does research to give them a data-backed scientific answer. That is clearly a better approach to intellectual discourse than illegally ignoring information requests.
 
Phil Jones, the professor at East Anglia's Climate Research center in the UK, and the man who shared a noble prize with Al Gore, has now admitted that global warming is a hoax. And that all data over the last 15 years about the global temperatures was "made up" in order to make seem as if the earth was warming. He stated that the last time the earth was ever warming, was in 1995, and that some data, not revealed to the public, showed global temperatures higher in the middle ages, then they are now. Below is one of the reports, this one is from Politifi.com.

By Doug Bandow on 2.14.10 @ 9:17AM Let's concede that not all Climate alarmists are dishonest. Still, ClimateGate keeps on getting worse (or better, depending upon one's point of view). Now Phil Jones, the man at the center of the scandal at East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, admits that maybe we aren't currently Warming. Reports the Daily Mail : The academic at the centre of the 'ClimateGate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of Climate Change, has admitted...
 
Phil Jones, the professor at East Anglia's Climate Research center in the UK, and the man who shared a noble prize with Al Gore, has now admitted that global warming is a hoax. And that all data over the last 15 years about the global temperatures was "made up" in order to make seem as if the earth was warming. He stated that the last time the earth was ever warming, was in 1995, and that some data, not revealed to the public, showed global temperatures higher in the middle ages, then they are now. Below is one of the reports, this one is from Politifi.com.

By Doug Bandow on 2.14.10 @ 9:17AM Let's concede that not all Climate alarmists are dishonest. Still, ClimateGate keeps on getting worse (or better, depending upon one's point of view). Now Phil Jones, the man at the center of the scandal at East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, admits that maybe we aren't currently Warming. Reports the Daily Mail : The academic at the centre of the 'ClimateGate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of Climate Change, has admitted...

You're going to have to find me a link to that... I mean seriously, the Daily Mail? I'm aware you probably don't know about it in the States but it's the newspaper equivalent of Fox News, except it's even more right-wing and even more utterly raving loopy.

The Daily Mail is the last word on news, by which I mean that it's only worth is for being the very last word you read on news, after all other informed and reasonable news has been exhausted.

EDIT: In all seriousness though I do actually want the link. It'll be very useful for my dissertation.

Don't these natural warming and cooling cycles last hundreds or thousands of years or something like that?

Yes. We're still coming off the last ice age ten thousand years ago according to general scientific consensus, which I suppose also rather rubbishes the passage I've quoted above too...

Personally, that 15 years of data has been "made up", strikes me as being a big, steaming pile of excrement.
 
Phil Jones, the professor at East Anglia's Climate Research center in the UK, and the man who shared a noble prize with Al Gore, has now admitted that global warming is a hoax. And that all data over the last 15 years about the global temperatures was "made up" in order to make seem as if the earth was warming. He stated that the last time the earth was ever warming, was in 1995, and that some data, not revealed to the public, showed global temperatures higher in the middle ages, then they are now. Below is one of the reports, this one is from Politifi.com.
No, he didn't.

Here is the interview that is taken from, and you will note that he never uses the words "made up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

Nor did he say that there is no warming, just not statistically significant warming, because the sample is too small to show warming.

The significant parts of the interview:

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.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

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 (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

The devil is in the details, which the Daily Mail conveniently forgot to look at.
 

Thanks for the link, it'll come in useful.

What we have there though is a (right-wing) blog, quoting from a (right wing), eco-sceptic newspaper. It's not quite what I'd call fair and balanced reporting. Unsurprisingly, they also hide away the more significant quote from Professor Jones, which is that he uses the term "no statistically significant" in relation to the warming (in other words, there could well have been warming, just not enough to decide whether it marks any sort of trend), and he also mentions that this lack of a trend is a "blip" rather than anything long term.

We are still in a situation where we are unable to determine whether global warming is being significantly influenced by man, or whether it's just a natural trend. Regardless of whatever spin the Daily Fail puts on it.

Edit: Tree'd by FK.
 
Phil Jones, the professor at East Anglia's Climate Research center in the UK, and the man who shared a noble prize with Al Gore, has now admitted that global warming is a hoax.
Competition for GTP's Darwin Award is not that fierce, you needn't try so hard...
 
I love the people who look out the window and go

"Its been snowing for days, so much for global warming"

With no perception that climate change goes in both directions. Seriously though we have more snow here then I can ever remember. My parents house, which usually average a 10-15 inch blizzard every 10 years, have had 1 20+ inch storm, 1 30+ inch storm, and 1 10+ inch storm since just before christmas. Nuts weather this year.
 
Thanks for the link, it'll come in useful.

What we have there though is a (right-wing) blog, quoting from a (right wing), eco-sceptic newspaper. It's not quite what I'd call fair and balanced reporting. Unsurprisingly, they also hide away the more significant quote from Professor Jones, which is that he uses the term "no statistically significant" in relation to the warming (in other words, there could well have been warming, just not enough to decide whether it marks any sort of trend), and he also mentions that this lack of a trend is a "blip" rather than anything long term.

We are still in a situation where we are unable to determine whether global warming is being significantly influenced by man, or whether it's just a natural trend. Regardless of whatever spin the Daily Fail puts on it.

Edit: Tree'd by FK.

Why does that matter? He lied to the people by making fake statistics. And no, it hasn't been getting warming since 1995. The leaked emails from the UK confirm that. Jones also under exaggerated the truth to lessen the blow on his reputation.
 
I saw this two days ago when someone linked me to the Daily Mail website - and I believe it also appeared on the Express front page yesterday. Given my incredible antipathy towards Phil Jones after reading the contents of his e-mails (bored was I) and having received lectures from him and the fact that even I didn't post the story in here, that should give some clue as to the weight the Mail's "journalism" carries with me.
 
Last edited:
Why does that matter? He lied to the people by making fake statistics. And no, it hasn't been getting warming since 1995. The leaked emails from the UK confirm that. Jones also under exaggerated the truth to lessen the blow on his reputation.

Would you like to provide me with links to these emails that "confirm" that there's been no warming since 1995? Read the article that you posted. Even the Daily Fail has had to include in their article that he used the term "not statistically significant" rather than actually saying the whole shebang was all made up. I think you'll find those words were yours.

If you're an eco-sceptic then fine - feel free - but you're completely refusing to view both sides of the debate, which is either because you're too scared to look into it in any proper detail, or possibly because you're just too myopic to learn about any other viewpoint on the subject than your own.

You seem to misunderstand - you're quoting from a very, very dubious source, and posting it as if it's some sort of fact. You're grossly mistaken.
 

Latest Posts

Back