Global Warming Scientist Does U-Turn

[tuckahoeskin]

Phil Jones, the leading scientist at the British CRU admits that there has been no global warming since 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

and a little more icing on the cake.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7026317.ece

[akhhorus]

Thats not what he said. From the interview:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

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.

.15C is considered significant change.

And later in the interview:

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.

So, the Daily Mail is misleading their readers about what he said.

[Fathead]

One scientists undoes the work of thousands of scientists over the last 50 years....not.

[tuckahoeskin]

Originally Posted by Fathead

One scientists undoes the work of thousands of scientists over the last 50 years....not.

The leading scientist of that unit, not just some scientist. And work of the last 50 years? Does that include those who called for the next ice age in the late 1970's? Give it up. The AGW believers are wrong. Just like the next-ice-age alarmists of the late '70's were wrong.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

The leading scientist of that unit, not just some scientist.

Who didn't say what you want to think he said. Thanks for not addressing that btw.

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

And work of the last 50 years? Does that include those who called for the next ice age in the late 1970's? Give it up. The AGW believers are wrong. Just like the next-ice-age alarmists of the late '70's were wrong.

[Spearfeather]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Who didn't say what you want to think he said. Thanks for not addressing that btw.

Why do the temps suddenly start going up when the thermometers are introduced?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Spearfeather

Why do the temps suddenly start going up when the thermometers are introduced?

Not that is relevant at all, but thermometers have been in use since the early 18th century. The red line probably is when they started to be in use for official statistics in the late 19th century(which would make sense since statistics became a growth industry about at that time).

[Biggie]

Hey, it's cold outside. Global warming is a lie!

[tuckahoeskin]

Originally Posted by Biggie

Hey, it's cold outside. Global warming is a lie!

And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.

[Biggie]

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.

Click Me

In any case, "global warming" is a misnomer. There's a reason people have started calling it climate change instead, and more extreme weather conditions are part of it.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.

The Global warming scientists don't claim that hurricanes prove anything. There's been hurricanes on the US East coast as long as the trade winds come off of Africa. The science suggests that warming in the seas(which is caused by increased CO2 levels) leads to stronger hurricanes since the warmer the ocean water is, the most moisture the storm can use to feed into it(and thats being seen in the Pacific also). Thats(the warmth of the ocean) why Katrina could hit Miami as a Category 2 storm I believe, then jump into a warm Gulf of Mexico to become a Category 4-5 storm when it hits New Orleans.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publicat...te-change#key5

[tuckahoeskin]

Check out the video here: http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/20...-eloquent.html

Head I win, tails you lose. The "Climate Change" arguments always change. Arguing with Climate Change believers is like sculpting with jello.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

Check out the video here: http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/20...-eloquent.html

Head I win, tails you lose. The "Climate Change" arguments always change. Arguing with Climate Change believers is like sculpting with jello.

Thanks for being unable to discuss the issue besides just parroting back links.

[tuckahoeskin]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Thanks for being unable to discuss the issue besides just parroting back links.

Right back at you. This thread is very quickly going to turn into another arguing with Akh thread like many others have had. Quite frankly, I'm not interested. I'm not going to be drawn into that.

Climate goes in cycles. There was a period in the last century with more hurricans than normal -- it was approximately 1910 to 1930 -- then began a period with fewer hurricanes followed by a swing in the opposite direction. The same cycles occured in temperature as well. My contention is that the Earth cycles itself and we are just along for the ride. There is no need for all of the "urgent action" on part of governmental bodies. To me, all of that is just a tool in the greater effort to hinder our freedom and economy.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

Right back at you. This thread is very quickly going to turn into another arguing with Akh thread like many others have had. Quite frankly, I'm not interested. I'm not going to be drawn into that.

Don't blame me for your problems. You posted an article that claimed the Phil Jones said that Global Warming hasn't happened since 1995. I posted the interview and what he really said. Rather than just taking your lumps for a single post and admitting that your initial link was wrong, you have decided to try and pretend my post doesn't exist and are just trying to change the subject to different links.

If you want to just push an agenda, go ahead, but if someone points out an obvious problem with what you're posting, thats your problem and not anyone else's. And the fact that you're trying to make me the issue is really pathetic on your part.

Originally Posted by tuckahoeskin

Climate goes in cycles. There was a period in the last century with more hurricans than normal -- it was approximately 1910 to 1930 -- then began a period with fewer hurricanes followed by a swing in the opposite direction. The same cycles occured in temperature as well. My contention is that the Earth cycles itself and we are just along for the ride. There is no need for all of the "urgent action" on part of governmental bodies. To me, all of that is just a tool in the greater effort to hinder our freedom and economy.

I agree with you on the cyclical nature of the climate, but the temperature trend is clearly off track since the industrial revolution. And even those most out there environmentalists aren't talking about limiting people's freedoms at all, unless you have some proof of that?