Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
Good job. You don't even read the past few posts (four or five posts ago?). Goes to show how well you actually understand this stuff.
As I said, at least have the decency to post the source interview, not the out-of-context daily mail hatchet job.
In today's Globe and Mail, a surprisingly even-handed opinion piece about the extremists on both sides, with David Suzuki being lumped together with the Republican Party.
In today's Globe and Mail, a surprisingly even-handed opinion piece about the extremists on both sides, with David Suzuki being lumped together with the Republican Party.
The problem with that piece is that Phil Jones got caught being both an alarmist and wrong (and, in my opinion, potentially fraudulent.) Now that's he's between a rock and a hard place, he's suddenly a reasonable, even-handed climate scientist. I can't believe Wente is trying to feed us that bull crap.
The third position she states shouldn't even be considered a third position. It's merely a lukewarm position on AGW. How can the three positions be: denier (no-AGW), alarmist (AGW) and reasonable people (AGW.) The third position should be scientists that believe climate change is occuring but have yet to determine its origin (even if it may in fact be anthropogenic.)
I certainly agree that those scientists indeed exist, but Phil Jones sure ain't one of 'em.
The problem with that piece is that Phil Jones got caught being both an alarmist and wrong (and, in my opinion, potentially fraudulent.) Now that's he's between a rock and a hard place, he's suddenly a reasonable, even-handed climate scientist. I can't believe Wente is trying to feed us that bull crap.
Jones is guilty of a few things. Not being transparent enough is one, and using his connections in a less than honourable manner is another.
However, wrong and fraudulent are much more difficult cases to make, especially if you actually a) are at all familiar with the science and b) understand how science is done.
The editor-in-chief of Nature (the gold-standard in scientific research journals) is on the record as saying that he believes that while Jones has not been open and transparent, and has hidden behind jargon at times, he has not engaged scientific fraud.
Jones is guilty of a few things. Not being transparent enough is one, and using his connections in a less than honourable manner is another.
However, wrong and fraudulent are much more difficult cases to make, especially if you actually a) are at all familiar with the science and b) understand how science is done.
The editor-in-chief of Nature (the gold-standard in scientific research journals) is on the record as saying that he believes that while Jones has not been open and transparent, and has hidden behind jargon at times, he has not engaged scientific fraud.
I stated it was my opinion, not unlike the editor-in-chief (albeit with a lot more credentials behind his opinion than mine!)
A correction in and of itself is not a big deal. If you read journals regularly, every issue has corrections. The question is whether or not it significantly changes the conclusions, which will be determined by the editors. It only sounds big and scary to the general populace unfamiliar with research.
It should be pointed out that despite the debate over station location, subsequent studies support the findings in the initial paper. This will likely be mentioned repeatedly in the correction, if there is one.
A correction in and of itself is not a big deal. If you read journals regularly, every issue has corrections. The question is whether or not it significantly changes the conclusions, which will be determined by the editors. It only sounds big and scary to the general populace unfamiliar with research.
It should be pointed out that despite the debate over station location, subsequent studies support the findings in the initial paper. This will likely be mentioned repeatedly in the correction, if there is one.
Sure. A correction three years in the making. Feel free to point out the "subsequent studies that support the finding in the initial paper." It would assist the ignorant and juvenile general populace in becoming more familiar with the research.
Meanwhile, back at NASA, they'll likely be getting a sense of what UAE CRU is going through. If this was climate science, it would be considered a trend....continued....
Other than their grating self-righteousness, the most annoying thing about global warmists is their double standards.
So, just to review the warmist perspective:
(1) North of the 49th parallel — global warming explains the lack of snow.
(2) South of the 49th parallel — global warming explains the snow.
Plus:
(1) Warmists can use single weather events to prove global warming.
(2) Opponents can’t use single weather events to disprove global warming.
Meanwhile, back at NASA, they'll likely be getting a sense of what UAE CRU is going through. If this was climate science, it would be considered a trend....continued....
A trend of carefully editing e-mails to provide a set of quotes without context for interpretation? Yeah, sure.
Sure. A correction three years in the making. Feel free to point out the "subsequent studies that support the finding in the initial paper." It would assist the ignorant and juvenile general populace in becoming more familiar with the research.
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
T. C. Peterson (2003). Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found. Journal of Climate16: 2941–2959
D. E. Parker (2004). "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban". Nature 432: 290
David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
T. C. Peterson (2003). Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found. Journal of Climate16: 2941–2959
D. E. Parker (2004). "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban". Nature 432: 290
David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
T. C. Peterson (2003). Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found. Journal of Climate16: 2941–2959
D. E. Parker (2004). "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban". Nature 432: 290
David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895
