So far, I have survived the population bomb, acid rain, the ozone hole and countless other instances of falling sky. Perhaps I'll survive this one as well.
I just thought these two paragraphs were fascinating (in the same way a car wreck is fascinating):
"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."
(Yes these two paragraphs are right after each other.)
So here we have warming that happened due to natural causes from 1975 to 1998, then more warming—that he says didn't happen during the last 15 years (since 1995 or 1994? Overlapping the last period of warming by 3 or 4 years)—which is not due to natural causes. Or put another way, the warming that didn't happen during the last 15 years was caused by humans (maybe).
Is the rubber room the next step? He's certainly babbling incoherently.
…and this is the "some evidence" that Marxy says backs up the theory of AGW… Ooooookkaaaaaayyyyyy…
It's an article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, whom one might call a Moderately Conservative Guy. The money quote is right at the end:
"Jones’ late admissions demonstrate that there is nothing “settled” about AGW, and that the process and the data are too murky for any declarations of certainty."
But, but, isn't it certain by someone who is conservative that AGW is wrong? Didn't Ed get the memo?
Lots of good stuff from the actual interview http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm?ad=1
eg, he admits that 1910-1940 rate of warming was statistically indistinguishable from 1975-1998 (or 2009, take your pick). So, why has he supported the 2001 [and 2007 revised] hockeystick graph[s] sjwing a VAST difference in rates between these periods? Uh...
Oh, and he ADMITS the Medieval Warm was WARMER than today's climate - except he says the data is only good for the Northern Hemisphere. Apparently it is thus perfectly fine to wipe it out of the graph by assuming, on the basis that noone knows better, that the Southern Hemisphere must have been so much colder than the Northern that the total was less than today.
And on and on. When I was six or seven, I had a top that spun almost as much.
Those who have hitched their wagon to the Global Warming theory are quickly becoming a minority and a shrinking one at that. The complex issue of climate change, I suspect is beyond current scientific methods, especially when those doing the so-called research are controlled by governmental groups sponsoring such research. The researchers are certainly aware of where their funding is coming from and will not bite the hand that feeds them---just the way it is! First time visitor came via Traction Control.
And so it continues. The current state of AGW... well, if you've ever seen a sci-fi space battle between large ships (or a WW2-era battle between similar battleships), AGW looks like a ship that's taken serious damage; smoke and fire bleeding from rents in the hull as it staggers onward.
The true believers will keep the ship afloat... for now. But I fully expect this to be shoved into the memory hole by the more pragmatic liberals in the near future.
I disagree that Jones admitted his scam isn't real. He certainly admitted to the dog having eaten his research, but saying there has been no statistically significant global warming during the past 15 years is not an admission that AGW isn't real, nor even (as the headline of the story falsely claims) that there hasn't been any global warming since 1995. Didn't he say in another interview that there probably had been, you just need a longer period than 15 years to get a statistically significant sample?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-hypothesis-does-not-or-cannot.html (14 comments)
"PHIL. JONES. The center of the controversy since the CRU email release, JUST. ADMITTED. IT. ISN'T. REAL."
An Inconvenient Truth, y'say?
Next great crisis: Anthropogenic Plate Tectonics.
So far, I have survived the population bomb, acid rain, the ozone hole and countless other instances of falling sky. Perhaps I'll survive this one as well.
I just thought these two paragraphs were fascinating (in the same way a car wreck is fascinating):
"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."
(Yes these two paragraphs are right after each other.)
So here we have warming that happened due to natural causes from 1975 to 1998, then more warming—that he says didn't happen during the last 15 years (since 1995 or 1994? Overlapping the last period of warming by 3 or 4 years)—which is not due to natural causes. Or put another way, the warming that didn't happen during the last 15 years was caused by humans (maybe).
Is the rubber room the next step? He's certainly babbling incoherently.
…and this is the "some evidence" that Marxy says backs up the theory of AGW… Ooooookkaaaaaayyyyyy…
My dog ate my data!
I'm reminded of the "dry lab" methods used by students the world over: First get your results, then derive your data.
Now, here is something interestsing:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/14/former-cru-chief-admits-warming-may-not-be-unprecedented/
It's an article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, whom one might call a Moderately Conservative Guy. The money quote is right at the end:
"Jones’ late admissions demonstrate that there is nothing “settled” about AGW, and that the process and the data are too murky for any declarations of certainty."
But, but, isn't it certain by someone who is conservative that AGW is wrong? Didn't Ed get the memo?
Catchy Title! And True! :)
Lots of good stuff from the actual interview
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm?ad=1
eg, he admits that 1910-1940 rate of warming was statistically indistinguishable from 1975-1998 (or 2009, take your pick). So, why has he supported the 2001 [and 2007 revised] hockeystick graph[s] sjwing a VAST difference in rates between these periods? Uh...
Oh, and he ADMITS the Medieval Warm was WARMER than today's climate - except he says the data is only good for the Northern Hemisphere. Apparently it is thus perfectly fine to wipe it out of the graph by assuming, on the basis that noone knows better, that the Southern Hemisphere must have been so much colder than the Northern that the total was less than today.
And on and on. When I was six or seven, I had a top that spun almost as much.
Those who have hitched their wagon to the Global Warming theory are quickly becoming a minority and a shrinking one at that. The complex issue of climate change, I suspect is beyond current scientific methods, especially when those doing the so-called research are controlled by governmental groups sponsoring such research. The researchers are certainly aware of where their funding is coming from and will not bite the hand that feeds them---just the way it is! First time visitor came via Traction Control.
And so it continues. The current state of AGW... well, if you've ever seen a sci-fi space battle between large ships (or a WW2-era battle between similar battleships), AGW looks like a ship that's taken serious damage; smoke and fire bleeding from rents in the hull as it staggers onward.
The true believers will keep the ship afloat... for now. But I fully expect this to be shoved into the memory hole by the more pragmatic liberals in the near future.
Speaking of hypotheses predicting future behavior...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-opting-to-kill-terrorists-rather-than-capture-them/
So, does killing the terrorists outright, instead of capturing and interrogating them help or hinder our efforts to defeat them?
The answer shed light on the question of whether or not Obama wants the terrorists to win.
I disagree that Jones admitted his scam isn't real. He certainly admitted to the dog having eaten his research, but saying there has been no statistically significant global warming during the past 15 years is not an admission that AGW isn't real, nor even (as the headline of the story falsely claims) that there hasn't been any global warming since 1995. Didn't he say in another interview that there probably had been, you just need a longer period than 15 years to get a statistically significant sample?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>