|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 14:34:42 GMT
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
It's nice of Phil to back up what I have been trying to get RV to understand, will he concede now?
i) Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing ii) There has been no global warming since 1995 iii) Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational 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. So where is it? He's, er, lost it. How convenient. Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits. Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming. Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt. You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent. But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body’s director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess.
As the case for AGW melts away (geddit!) Jones also concedes 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. Oh dear, we were right all along, in fact there has been a cooling over the last 12 years.
This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ collapses. It looks very much like the AGW theory is about to falsified (no pun intended) for good.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 14:57:31 GMT
it was warmer in the middle ages...mmm and some winters were more severe too
must have been man made of course....lol but to be serious...now what is it..global warming global cooling or is it just the earth doing what it has always done..warming and cooling...seas rising..seas ebbing the sun..the moon..external presures..el nino etc etc etc compared to which man is but a tiny insignifican gnat
which is not to say we shouldnt be looking after the planet in a better and more responsible way.....but at the same time our govs have no excuse now to tax us out of existance wonder if we are still to cough up billions to throw after the billions which we have already thrown away
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 14:58:25 GMT
Jones’ admission about Michael Mann’s trick to “hide the decline” implicates those other climatologists who received the aforementioned email, i.e. Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn. As an illustration, the case against Phil Jones and others under the Fraud Act (2006) is evinced by “Fraud by false representation (Section 2)” that summarizes what a prosecutor would be seeking to prove. To attain a guilty verdict against the Defendant the following five elements must be fulfilled so that Professor Jones: (1.) made (2.) a false representation (3.) dishonestly (4.) knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading (5.) with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. Bear in mind that UEA and Jones’s gain is a loss to other scientific institutions who did not resort to “tricks” to secure government grants
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 15:08:41 GMT
it was warmer in the middle ages...mmm and some winters were more severe too must have been man made of course....lol but to be serious...now what is it..global warming global cooling or is it just the earth doing what it has always done..warming and cooling...seas rising..seas ebbing the sun..the moon..external presures..el nino etc etc etc compared to which man is but a tiny insignifican gnat which is not to say we shouldnt be looking after the planet in a better and more responsible way.....but at the same time our govs have no excuse now to tax us out of existance wonder if we are still to cough up billions to throw after the billions which we have already thrown away Its all about money, mouse. Did you know, the BBC’s handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around €4trillion (Euros) that, in turn is invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillions (US). The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.” Yes, you did read that correctly: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…” The BBC is in the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme! Now you know why the BBC’s thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years and why campaigners for truth and freedom from climate propaganda have www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-climate-denier-stands-by-attack-on-biased-censoring-bbc/UKIP’s Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UK’s fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said: “The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship.”
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 16:36:33 GMT
of course its all about money..i find it obcene that al gore has made so much out of ""global""warming..if he were so concerned he wouldnt have made a penny and yes i read about the BBC and sent a copy off to cameron[who will never see it but at least i try and maybe his computer bod will have a read] there apear to be no morals..no ethics and no scams which the powers that be are not using to their own end...i would like to see the whole bally bunch of disgusting snouts in trough pigs hang
and they are now tring to block information on unpaid bar bills from the commons..runs into 6,,yes 6 figures
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 16:37:55 GMT
Jones’ admission about Michael Mann’s trick to “hide the decline” implicates those other climatologists who received the aforementioned email, i.e. Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn.
As an illustration, the case against Phil Jones and others under the Fraud Act (2006) is evinced by “Fraud by false representation (Section 2)” that summarizes what a prosecutor would be seeking to prove. To attain a guilty verdict against the Defendant the following five elements must be fulfilled so that Professor Jones:
(1.) made (2.) a false representation (3.) dishonestly (4.) knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading (5.) with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
and will fraud charges be forth comming or will it be swept under the carpet like expences and irak
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 17:19:17 GMT
Nobody will be the least bit surprised that the vermin at the Daily Mail have twisted and misrepresented evidence, nor the halfwit followers of that glorified toilet paper have swallowed it, hook line and sinker.
What the Tory scum have yet to explain what science has changed. Of course they cammot, because they have no interest in science.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 14, 2010 17:43:54 GMT
RV, I do wish that sometimes you'd post with slightly less venom.
In the first place, suggesting that all Tories are scum is pretty indefensible. No politician has fought harder for civil liberties in our country than David Davis in recent years.
The fact is that there's no such thing as 'science;' there are scientists and there is scientific activity but 'science' as such doesn't exist except as a subject at school and university.
There are plenty of scientists, including climate scientists, who disagree with your point of view.
Yes, they are in a minority but that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't ultimately be vindicated.
It's also perfectly OK for people to raise queries, objections and so on and try to argue their case rationally.
You're obviously passionate about the subject but sometimes you come across rather like a fundamentalist Christian than someone with the scientific attitude you always speak so highly of.
It's very sad because it takes away from your argument rather than adding to it.
Just shouting louder doesn't make your argument any better or make it any more likely to be true or false.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 18:14:30 GMT
In the first place, suggesting that all Tories are scum is pretty indefensible. No politician has fought harder for civil liberties in our country than David Davis in recent years. Davis is no defender of the the people, he is a denfender of the rich people, nothing more and nothing less. There are plenty of scientists, including climate scientists, who disagree with your point of view. Yes, they are in a minority but that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't ultimately be vindicated. There are hardly 'plently', Lin. Those that do are either on the margins of the 'science' of climate or nothing to do with climate. It's also perfectly OK for people to raise queries, objections and so on and try to argue their case rationally. It is not okay to to make data or facts that happen to fit your claims. No-one has ever disputed that there are warmer periods of history or that there are cooling patterns either, but claiming that either of these are new claims or that they disprove global warming are patently false. You're obviously passionate about the subject but sometimes you come across rather like a fundamentalist Christian than someone with the scientific attitude you always speak so highly of. The only 'passion' I have for here is truth. Tories despise truth and prefer propaganda. I have said that I openly despise the Tory Party and the most despicable of their supporters, the other 10% need to explain why they hang about with the scum. It's very sad because it takes away from your argument rather than adding to it. Just shouting louder doesn't make your argument any better or make it any more likely to be true or false. I am not interested in 'winning' as such, anyone who cannot accept Global Warming based on the entire scientific community's science is hardly likely to be swayed my puny input, are they?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 18:21:10 GMT
Nobody will be the least bit surprised that the vermin at the Daily Mail have twisted and misrepresented evidence, nor the halfwit followers of that glorified toilet paper have swallowed it, hook line and sinker. What the Tory scum have yet to explain what science has changed. Of course they cammot, because they have no interest in science. Oh dear, RV. Jones has backtracked and left you high and dry. Keep the faith brother. Still, it's nice of Phil to back up what I have been saying all along.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 18:25:15 GMT
When the BBC wobbled., ie mentioned the skeptic case.....the emails flew....
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
Now that's what some might call 'scum'
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 19:12:00 GMT
Now that's what some might call 'scum' What do you mean, Fretty? Why is expecting the BBC to tell the truth make people 'scum'?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 19:13:18 GMT
Oh dear, RV. Jones has backtracked and left you high and dry. Keep the faith brother. Are you actiually capable of reading, Fretty? What has been backtracked?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 19:15:40 GMT
Oh dear, RV. Jones has backtracked and left you high and dry. Keep the faith brother. Are you actiually capable of reading, Fretty? What has been backtracked? Oh poor old RV, I can understand how you must be feeling right now. Jones said it all I have nothing to add LOL
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 19:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 20:14:26 GMT
Oh poor old RV, I can understand how you must be feeling right now. I seriously doubt it. Nothing sensible to add at any rate. Any lingering hope you had of being taken seriously have been proved futile when you quote a Tory rag. Your hatred of science has forced you into further embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 20:25:29 GMT
Oh poor old RV, I can understand how you must be feeling right now. I seriously doubt it. RV You haven't the faintest idea about HMD, or science. When you're in a hole you'd best stop digging. To quote your hero, nothing has been proven. Remember what the reaction was to Richard Lindzen claiming “no significant rise in temperature since 1995″? And now Jones confirms it. Climategate is simply the gift that keeps on giving. Nothing sensible to add at any rate. Any lingering hope you had of being taken seriously have been proved futile when you quote a Tory rag. Your hatred of science has forced you into further embarrassment. RV You haven't the faintest idea about HMD, or science. When you're in a hole you'd best stop digging. To quote your hero, nothing has been proven. Remember what the reaction was to Richard Lindzen claiming “no significant rise in temperature since 1995″? And now Jones confirms it. Climategate is simply the gift that keeps on giving. I don't know about you, as you won't say, but I have a BSc(Hons) in Ecology and Statistics, so all this anti-science crap is just that crap.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 20:31:26 GMT
but I have a BSc(Hons) in Ecology and Statistics, so all this anti-science crap is just that crap. I seriously doubt this, if the things to reproduce here is anything to go by.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 14, 2010 20:33:42 GMT
but I have a BSc(Hons) in Ecology and Statistics, so all this anti-science crap is just that crap. I seriously doubt this, if the things to reproduce here is anything to go by. As you wish. What do you have?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 14, 2010 20:53:49 GMT
I seriously doubt this, if the things to reproduce here is anything to go by. As you wish. What do you have? What do you want me to say, Fretty? You claim to have knowledge of ecology, yet you seem to have trouble in accepting that there many factors in the climate, not just the rise in CO2. You cannot accept that temperatures can drop over a period of years despite the longer term trend being upward. You appear to be quite happy to accept that a graph starting from the highest point of a ten year period is sufficient grounds to declare AGW as sunk. You appear to dismiss carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and above all else, you appear to suggest that the Medieval Warm Period somehow disproves carbon dioxide influence in climate change. What I am I supposed to think of someone who cannot distinguish between two completely different climate phenomena and their qualifications regarding ecology and statistics?
|
|