No global warming since 1995!
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 02-15-2010 - 11:13pm |
This will be news to some, mostly liberals, who believe technology, humanity, and generally modern living is somehow evil.
There is no global warming, and hasn't been for about 15 years. The fraud has been exposed. Sometimes the climate gets warmer, sometimes it gets cooler, the likely driver, in fact the only obvious driver is our sun. Humans have virtually no effect on earths climate.
By the way, before anyone mentions Vancouver, on ABC news today, they mentioned that the average daily high in February is 50F for that city. The warm weather they are having is normal. Apparently the Olympic committee when selecting cities is more concerned with politics, than with the actual ability of a city to provide for the sports. Vancouver was a very poor choice. Any city with normal highs of 50F would be a poor place to have a winter Olympics.
Now we can all drive our safe mini-vans, SUV's and run easy on the eyes incandescent lighting without guilt.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
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
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organizational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
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.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analyzed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organization in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘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, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Skeptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, skeptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Pages
The
Thank you for posting that!
***This will be news to some, mostly liberals, who believe technology, humanity, and generally modern living is somehow evil.***
((So, should I take the next step and say, conservatives, who believe progress, advancing non-hydrocarbon technology, and clean air and water is somehow evil?))
Conservatives are not against any of that.
They are against "global warming" being used to pass the Cap and Trade Scam.
This piece of legislation will devastate the country. It will do absolutely nothing to keep the planet from warming. China and India are not going to participate...as well as many other polluting countries.
It will cause the price of gasoline to skyrocket. Energy prices will skyrocket. Prices of everything will skyrocket. Jobs will move overseas...because companies cannot afford to stay in business in America.
It is a ridiculous scam designed to make Goldman Sachs and Al Gore rich!
All you have to do is toddle your PC over to - http://eastangliaemails.com/
You can search cooling, and find out what the pro-climate change scientists say to each other. Clearly they are out to get people who disagree with them, personally, as in getting people fired from news organizations that disagree with global warming, or who question it. The same with papers.
The most honest scientific comment I've yet found in the emails, follows from here - http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=14&filename=.txt
The temperature graphs produced at Tornetrask show "pronounced variability on all timescales, from year-on-year variations right up to century-on-century," says Briffa. On the longer timescales, for instance, they show 20 major cooling periods during the past two millenia, including long spells between 500 and 850, between 1100 and 1350 and between 1580 and 1750, the little ice age. There were also long warm spells between 900 and 1100, known as the medieval warm period, and 1360 to 1560. .
Further back, early results suggest a strong warm era from 4000 to 3300 BC, and a cool period ending around 5070 BC. But there are intriguing gaps, for which no tree rings can be found. These, says Briffa, "suggest some major calamity that destroyed trees. Volcanoes, perhaps, or a rapid rise in the water tables." A 19-year gap between 1130 and 1111 BC, for instance, coincides with volcanic ash showing up in Greenland ice.
"What all this means," says Briffa, "is that the old image of the 10 000 years since the end of the last ice age -- the Holocene era -- as climatically tranquil looks increasingly inaccurate." Hence the intense interest in the EU project, which will attempt to reconstruct those 10 000 years of climate right across northern Europe and Asia, from Ireland to the Sea of Okhotsk, from the borders of Mongolia to shores of the Arctic Ocean.
I think that the BBC article is fairly clear, and is the "source" interview for the author of the OP. There was a misrepresentation by the author of the article in the OP as to what was actually said during the BBC interview. It is not true that there was no global warming since 1995, and the scientist did NOT say that there was no global warming. Instead, he said that there was warming, but that the timeframe was so short as to have made the number not significant:
<<<<
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
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. >>>>>
**Conservatives are not against any of that.**
Of course not. Nor do liberals
((See the problem with gross generalizations?))
it wasn't me who made the gross generalization.
Nova: Extreme Ice
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html
Pages