So I am flipping through the Fox News articles this evening and I stumble across one that states simply, “Top Climate Scientist Drops Bombshell.” I thought to myself “this should be interesting.” I had no idea what kind of bombshell it might be or who is now considered the top climate scientist, but I figure if it is a bombshell, I have to read it. Imagine my surprise to find out that the top scientist they are talking about is none other than Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. The same guy who had the email “hiding the decline” and “performing tricks”. But I was even more floored when I read what he had to say in an interview with BBC television. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t like the guy turned over and admitted that he made it all up, but he admitted to several things that, in my opinion, make the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists look a bit foolish.
I am not going to reprint the entire interview here. I will link to it at the bottom, along with the article from Fox News that pointed me to it in the first place. The BBC has been largely supportive of the global warming hoax for quite a long time, so I was surprised to see the BBC’s leading climate investigator asking such tough questions of Jones. I figured when I clicked over there, I would find the equivalent of Keith Olbermann interviewing Nancy Pelosi, a kissy kissy tingle up my leg moment. But that wasn’t the case. A few select questions and answers from the interview:
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 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).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
So my take on this answer is that, despite his floundering around a bit, he admits that the four periods are basically the same in terms of warming rates. This despite the fact that each of the four periods had significantly different impact from “human industrialization”. That only makes sense, in my opinion, to assume. 1860-1880 certainly was far less industrialization than 1975-1998, right? And the industrial output of the world overall has done nothing but increase over time, despite measures to lower this such as the Kyoto Protocol.
So how then is it possible to make the case that time periods having similar warming trends result in a conclusion that man is causing the warming? These are time periods with drastically different world population levels, drastically different levels of industrialization, drastically different levels of the green house gasses that are blamed, drastically different levels of every major thing the government says we must control, yet they all warmed at basically the same rate. That doesn’t make much of a case for saying that any of the things being legislated have anything to do with global warming. Or am I just too dense to understand?
It seems to me that for Jones to have the data he admits to, and to admit that there is no statistically significant difference, and then to conclude that man’s actions are causing global warming is akin to saying: Although we know that water has boiled at 212 degrees since the beginning of time, we can reasonably conclude that the water boiling on that stove is caused by the pot it is sitting in, not the 212 degree flame below the pot.
Question 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.
Question 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.
Put these two questions and answers together, and what I am getting from it is that Jones feels that the fact that it is now cooling means nothing if he can include data from back when it was warming. This, my friends is the mindset of those that argue the global warming madness. The data we have doesn’t work to support our conclusions. However, if we change the parameters, we can get the results we are looking for. Then we just have to claim that the data is more accurate with our added data than without it. Hence we have things such as “hide the decline” and “performing tricks” to get the desired result.
Question 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. 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). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
This one absolutely kills me. Even though we know that the earth has heated and cooled for millions of years, before man was even around, his answer, without saying it directly is “no”. Natural influences would not have contributed significantly to the global warming from 1975-1998, despite the fact that the man made forces you are blaming did not exist during three other periods that had warming periods that were similar in warming. He basically says that because of these two volcanic eruptions, we would guess that cooling would occur. Since cooling did not occur because of these two eruptions, the only viable solution is that any warming could not have been caused by natural influences. I hope that the ridiculousness of such a statement from someone considered to be a climate expert sends a chill down your spine. The fact that he thinks people will actually buy his reasoning should make you angry at how stupid he thinks you are.
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.
I am interested in Peter or BF’s input here. It seems to me that question #1 answered this quite naturally, in that there is no difference in warming during the period he is referencing and the other periods where the causes that man is responsible for were not present. I have not read IPCC Chapter 9, so I figure perhaps some of you have and will refute this as well. I also find it odd that he claims to be 100% certain that the climate has warmed when he readily admits that there have been similar fluctuations in temperature in the past. Is this akin to an easy statement to refute? I am 100% certain the climate has warmed too, because last summer was hotter than last winter? I am looking to understand how he could make such a statement in light of the other admissions that he makes in this interview.
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 (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
I will again defer to PeterB and BF here, as I know that they have already significantly researched the MWP. Basically, my take on this answer was that if the MWP can be proven to be global, then he is all wrong, an easy admission to make because he already knows we don’t have the data to prove that the MWP was global. We simply didn’t know half the world existed at that point. The is akin to Mathius admitting that if I can prove that I could have beaten Muhammad Ali in his prime (when I was a child), then he will admit that I am the Greatest Fighter of all time (Its the GOAT baby!). It is easy to seem pragmatic when you know you can’t be proven wrong. Just ask the economists who predict 50 years from now. Go ahead and try to prove they will be wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. Without a time machine, they remain safe.
Question H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.
Question I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No – see again my answer to D.
And then to compound the ridiculousness, he uses his strange deductions from question D (the volcano eruptions answer) as all the proof he needs that warming in the most recent period (which is not statistically significant in difference) has been primarily caused by man. I want to point out that this is supposed to be one of the leading climate scientists in the world. This is who all the alarmist point to as being the guru. And this is the level of logic he is using to convince us that we should spend trillions of dollars, change everything about the way that we live, and pass massive restrictions on the freedom and liberty of Americans? The people who have embraced this man as their “proof” that the debate over whether man causes climate change should be hanging their heads and apologizing to me publicly.
Question N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
I only added this because now every single time I hear someone say that the debate on climate change is over, I am going to point out to them that the guy who started this whole mad scheme says that they are wrong. HE doesn’t think the debate is over. Yet the American media would label you a “denier” and lump you in with birthers, Truthers, and returning veterans as a threat to the country should you ever suggest that the debate is not over. Oh let me at Olbermann….
But it is interesting that the debate is over for him, after all all he has to do is tell you to refer to his answer to question D above. And the only debate he is still interested in is about reducing uncertainties, not in re-evaluating the data and finding out if the original conclusions were false. Then again, he knew they were false from the beginning, didn’t he?
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn’t this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor’s award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.
Interestingly, he spent a lot of time telling us about the peer reviewing that he has done since 2005 and touting his credentials. What he didn’t do was effectively dispel the idea that he was subverting the process of peer review and influencing editors. His answer to that was no, I didn’t. Then he admits to trashing anything that didn’t fit his views, which is his right under freedom of speech.
Obviously there were other questions that I didn’t include here. One of them was his explanation for “hide the decline” and “performing tricks”, which I have heard before, and do not accept. I read a significant amount of the emails. There is little doubt that he and those he was corresponding with were attempting to present data only in ways that supported their conclusions. It is also very evident that they worked extremely hard to not allow their raw data to be reviewed. I have little doubt that the “independent review” will do little to tell us the reality of what was happening, and unless someone wants to go the route that I did and read all the emails, they will accept whatever the review report tells them.
So here is my take overall on this article… This is yet another piece of the puzzle in showing that this entire thing has been a massive fraud. This is the head guy. This is like Obama coming out and giving a speech where he admits that his ultimate goal is to turn the USA into a communist state. Or Congress admitting that all members take a secret oath to obey the party rather than their constituents. Or George Bush giving an interview stating that he only went to Iraq because he figured the best way to end our oil dependency was to conquer a country that had a bunch of it. This is the top guy admitting that we have been cooling. This is the top guy also being exposed for the ridiculous conclusions that he is drawing. The only thing better would have been if he had admitted that this whole plot was hatched at a secret meeting between him, Al Gore, and Elvis.
And you want the best part? As is the usual, The Lame Stream Media is not covering it. Like any story that makes them look like an ass, it isn’t a story at all. Like any story that goes against the agenda they believe in, they figure they can simply ignore it and all those folks currently supporting them simply will never find out. This was on Fox News. And it linked to the BBC article. I checked CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, HuffPo, and some other major left leaning news organizations, and not a single one mentioned a word about this interview. I would think that when the top climate guy at the center of all this buzz about leaked emails, manipulated data, and the rest of it gives an interview, it would be news. Well, not if you are part of the MSM. It isn’t news at all. And that is exactly what folks are talking about when they say that omission is a form of bias that should be called out.
So let me say what I have always said. Man Made Global Warming is a Lie. A hoax. A sham. We are insignificant inhabitants on this planet. It takes a massive amount of arrogance to think that we can impact the climate in this way when we see coral reefs recover completely from multiple nuclear bomb tests in just 50 years. Ring the bell. Flash the lights. Last call for AGW alarmists. You don’t have to go home, but you have to get the hell out of here.
The article links I promised:
The BBC Interview:BBC News – Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
And for those interested, the emails: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – Searchable