[litespeed (OP)]

Phil Jones is reported to have said some remarkable things recently:

"Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view"...Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either."

Jeeze, FIFTEEN YEARS of near climate stasis. Even as a skeptic I thought near-stasus was only TEN years long! Climatology is in a sad state of affairs when one of its Mount Olympus gods is more skeptical then me on this particular point. I was too generous by 50%

ONLY FIVE DAYS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET!!! And where is algore when you really really need him?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, could you repeat that but with less "tub thumping" and more context please?

[litespeed (OP)]

BC

The context is this. First, the guy apparently 1) deleted and encourage others to delete data that might cast doubt on recent GW reports; and 2) suppress publication of contrarian studies. In addition, he escapes criminal prosecution on Freedom of Information charges only because the statute of limitations has expired, but is none-the-less relieved of his duties.

NOW he seems a Born-Again agnostic. Global Warming? "We ain't seen no stink'n Global Warming since 1995."  The science is settled. There is consensus. "Consensus? Thats silly. Certainly not. Certainly EYE don't believe that to be the case. In fact, it may very well have been warmer in the Middle Ages then now, but you must understand we are not sure it was a global phenomena. Maybe. Maybe not...."  Some weather babe should offer free dramamine to the first 25 callers.....

So. Do you believe what he says about GW? That there has been no significant warming since 1995?  I never even heard that before, and EYE am a GW skeptic....

[JimBob]

There is plenty of other evidence out there.

I believe that the global science disproves your quoted statement ""We ain't seen no stink'n Global Warming since 1995." I suspect that this was not the real words of an Englishman.

In fact This January was the hottest WORLD average temperature since 1998, another El Nino year. This is even more impressive and proof of global climate warming because we are also experiencing a solar minimum, although the sun's activity is about halfway back to normal. not even back to near normal, although sunspot activity has increased since the first of the year. ** The sun's activity will be seen in the future months as increased warming of temperatures.


from the link below

For full story see link below. And remember - this is pure data, not filtered, not messed with - it is just satellite records.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/hottest-january-in-uah-satellite-record-roy-spencer-global-warming/


** This was changed to reflect the accurate state of the sun at present. I checked the data.

[Madidus_Scientia]

I guess it would be too much to expect to debate about the actual science of climate change.

Instead litespeed has been reduced to evangelizing his agenda with ad-hominems against some particular climatologist that have already been shown to be wildly biased and twisted.

For those who would like to see for themselves the actual interview from which litespeed is putting his own spin on.. in fact, going almost beyond spin into plain lies, is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

Phil Jones is reported to have said some remarkable things recently:

"Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view"...

The keeper of the flame? WTF?

This is what was actually said:

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either."

Again, this is what was actually said:

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.

Convienient how you failed to mention the following quote from the interview, isn't it?

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.

The context is this. First, the guy apparently 1) deleted and encourage others to delete data that might cast doubt on recent GW reports; and 2) suppress publication of contrarian studies. In addition, he escapes criminal prosecution on Freedom of Information charges only because the statute of limitations has expired, but is none-the-less relieved of his duties.

No, the context is this:

In a later interview Jones said that e-mails which appeared to suggest withholding data had expressed his irritation at the large numbers of requests which disrupted his team's work. He said "We were clearly being targeted" and that as most of the information requested was already available online, "I think they just wanted to waste our time". He now accepted that he should have taken the requests more seriously, and said "I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way. In a way, I misjudged the situation." He said that no data were destroyed. “We have no data to delete. It comes to us from institutions around the world. We interpret data. We don’t create or collect it. It’s all available from other sources." Jones added that "I am obviously going to be much more careful about my emails in future. I will write every email as if it is for publication. But I stand 100% behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data, and I look forward to proving that to the Sir Muir Russell inquiry.

[PhysBang]

Another important piece of context on the Freedom of Information requests is that global warming deniers have a lot of organized money behind them and have been known to attempt to bury researchers under a flood of FoI requests. In the past, many researchers have provided the data requested by the front organizations of global warming deniers and this data has gone unused. Thus it is demonstrable that the flood of FoI requests are frivolous and can be denied. This context and information is readily available and even found in the stolen emails, but seldom reported.