 |
Speak Out North Saint Paul
Welcome to this on-line community. Tell us what is on your mind.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
disgruntled
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1621
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
One of the leading scientists behind man-made global warming theories admits he has trouble keeping track of records, admits it may have been warmer during medieval times, and admits there has been no global warming since 1995.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
| Quote: |
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
* 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.
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 sceptics 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.
(As they should.  )
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 sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed 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.
‘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.’
(How can you issue "improved data" to a discrete measurement? You can't! The only data you can make alterations to are estimates, not measurements! A measurement is taken at an instant and it cannot be changed later!)
Sceptics 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.
(The fact is that nobody alive today can ever know.)
Sceptics 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 criticised 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’.
(Uh huh.)
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical 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, sceptics 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.
|
Among the problems with climate change theorists is that the proponents of global warming never release their data.
And all you Democrats continue to insist that man-made global warming is real. 
It's bad enough that you were duped by something so obviously fraudulent. But you continue to dupe yourselves with intentional ignorance of the mountain of evidence indicating a lack of global warming and fraud! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jane Austen
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: Here is the entire interview |
|
|
Here is the entire interview with Phil Jones.
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
I suppose Disgruntled was unable to find the original interview using the google (hint: search on Phil Jones BBC). Even if Disgruntled had found it, the article was sooooo long that it would have been difficult to read it in its entirety. If he had read it, he would have realized that there was awhole lot of selective quoting going on by the dailymail. And I'm sure it was inadvertent on Disgruntled's part that he then cherry-picked sections from the dailymail article to make things sound even more nefarious. I'm sure Disgruntled is embarrassed--it was all a mistake, I know. 
_________________
Yes. We. Can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disgruntled
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1621
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read that earlier today.
| Jane Austen wrote: |
I suppose Disgruntled was unable to find the original interview using the google (hint: search on Phil Jones BBC).
|
I searched Google News for "Phil Jones" this afternoon.
| Jane Austen wrote: |
Even if Disgruntled had found it, the article was sooooo long that it would have been difficult to read it in its entirety.
|
I can read very fast.
| Jane Austen wrote: |
If he had read it, he would have realized that there was awhole lot of selective quoting going on by the dailymail. And I'm sure it was inadvertent on Disgruntled's part that he then cherry-picked sections from the dailymail article to make things sound even more nefarious. I'm sure Disgruntled is embarrassed--it was all a mistake, I know. |
No, I am not embarrassed. Watch this! 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
| Quote: |
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century.
|
The "scientist" just admitted that the temperature data he uses to conclude global warming are "estimates". He also admits that older temperature data is more "uncertain". However, it isn't only because of "sparser coverage", but because of less accurate measuring equipment 140 years ago.
| Quote: |
The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
|
He admits that there is no statistically significant difference between warming 90 years ago and 12 years ago.
If warming in 1910 is not significantly different than in 1998, how can man be to blame?
Then look at the temperature change table. From 1975 to 2009 in his estimation there was a 0.161 Celsius increase in temperature per decade.
THAT'S IT? Only 16/100ths of a degree Celsius change in temperature per decade and that is proof of global warming and that man is the cause?
Here's what your liberal brain is incapable of understanding, Jane: statistics are not precise measurements.
Statistics such as this are descriptors and estimates. They can--and almost always are--inaccurate.
For example, how would we find the average weight of the people who live in North St. Paul?
According to census.gov, the population of NSP in 2008 was 11,247 (down from 11,929 in 2000). This, of course, is only an estimate. But for our purposes, let's just assume it is 100% accurate.
In order to find the true average weight of all the people who live in the city, we would have to weigh every one of them. We would then sum their weights and divide by the number of people weighed.
Doing this would be time consuming and costly. Instead of this, we could do a random sample and get an approximation of the average weight of the populace. Temperature data is a sample as well.
It is impossible to measure the temperature of the entire planet. It cannot be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29
The temperature data is not a random sample. It may not even be enough to give us a close approximation.
As for the weight of the people, we could pick a certain number at random, weigh them, then conclude that the figure we get is close to the actual average weight of the citizens.
However, in a random sample there is always error and it is impossible to know what the true value is based on the sample. You cannot do it. You can use the data to compute a "margin of error", but you still cannot know what the true value is or even if it lies within that margin of error. Because statistically, it is possible to lie outside of the margin.
We can get more accurate if we pick a larger sample. But the only way for us to know what the actual average weight of all the people living in the city is is to actually weigh every one of them.
It is absurd the way climate scientists are using figures as small as 16/100ths of a degree over a decade and concluding that warming is occurring based only on that.
A figure of 16/100ths of a degree could and likely is based on sampling error or inaccuracies in measuring equipment or even bias.
| Quote: |
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.
|
No. The measuring equipment being used today is not the same being used 50 years ago. That fact alone is going to introduce error.
| Quote: |
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
|
Wouldn't the +0.12 and the -0.12 offset each other? I like it. When there is a -.12C change in 8 years--a shorter time period, that is insignificant.
Here's the fact: a measurement of 0.12C is insignificant itself. You are using that 12/100ths of a degree Celsius from a few thousand measuring stations to draw conclusions about the entire planet! You CANNOT DO THIS!
| Quote: |
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.
|
There is not a person alive or who will ever live who can tell you with high precision the warming or cooling effect of a volcano in Watts per square meter.
| Quote: |
When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system).
|
Yah yah, sure sure. The problem is that you cannot accurately measure any of these things. It cannot be done.
Nothing bothers me more when people use guestimates as high precision facts!
| Quote: |
Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period.
|
Could have, or they might not. The fact of the matter is this guy does not know and this could not be measured.
| Quote: |
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.
|
No scientist worth a sh*t would ever be 100% confident in estimates that are not 100% accurate.
You cannot place 100% confidence in something that isn't 100% accurate.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigtime
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: Silence........ |
|
|
Disgruntled wrote:  Poof!
_________________
Fight organized crime............. re-elect no one! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
