Sunday, February 14, 2010

Climategate Boss Phil Jones Turns Tail


I LOVE Bill Kristol.

He's clear & concise, & doesn't let a whole lot get past him.



Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace stated today Climate Scientists are saying record snow falls across the country (get this) - far from disprove global warming - but actually prove or fit their 'model' of GW. Mr. Wallace sums up the rationale: "rising temperatures warm the oceans, creates more moisture; when that combines with cold air: snow."

Chris W. asks Mr. Kristol, "Do you buy it?"

Bill Kristol responds (chuckling), "It's wonderful to have a model where you can account for both less snow & more snow, & both prove you point."

More serious, he continues, "Phil Jones...the climate scientist who is the HUGE advocate of the climate change & GW hypothesis (who was in the center of the climategate scandal), said a couple of days ago in a BBC interview ...that during the Medieval Warming Period (1000-1400 AD) the earth may have been warmer than it is now. That's why Greenland was called Greenland...it was green in the southern part of Greenland. You could actually grow things there [& milder climate allowed for Viking colonization of the land]...that's a HUGE concession. Their whole premise has been, 'we are in an unprecedented moment of GW.' They're now having to retreat even from that."

Not done yet, Mr. Kristol continues to the finale, "We're now going to have a complicated scientific debate for the next 20, 30, 40 years, take some incremental steps to adjust a few things, but..."

and
his piece de resistance:

"The
whole Global Warming Hysteria is OVER."

I'm all-for-hoping his piece de resistance proves correct.
~~~

35 comments:

DUTA said...

I wouldn't call it global warming , but global weather anomaly. In Vancouver , Canada,I am told the magnolias are blooming now; that's an anomaly.

BetteJo said...

It's normal. It's NORMAL!! The dinosaurs were not killed by people driving SUVs, anymore than the glaciers that created the great lakes were melted by farting cows. We are not going to be able to stop the earth from changing, we just need to be prepared and get out of it's way. Sheesh!

Susannah said...

DUTA~ Yes. Thing is, anomalies happen all the time, & we don't go bananas over it. The global warming crowd has gone bananas. Case in point: Al Gore.

BetteJo~ Beautiful! (I'm still chuckling about those cows!)

Joe said...

"The whole Global Warming Hysteria is OVER."

We could only wish.

Those who have a stake in GW (Algore and his friends) are dyed in the wool untruthers and don't give a rat's ear whether the science is right or not.

bluepitbull said...

This is God's answer to the global warming tycoons. Keep snowing America!!

Fredd said...

Bill Kristol, if you recall, was one of 'our' guys who was on that band wagon that said 'the era of Reagan is over.'

Now he says 'the whole global warming hysteria is over.'

What's next from Bill? 'The era of sliced bread is over?'

Toad734 said...

One of the coldest places on the planet is also one of the driest, if not the driest place on the planet. Yes I am talking about Antarctica. You know, where your precious monogamous (for a year) penguins live.

Nice try, snow doesn't equal cold. Can you leave the science to the scientists??

Next you are going to try to tell me that evolution isn't real, or that the Earth is flat.

Susannah said...

TOAD~ You just make me laugh!! :)

"Can you leave the science to the scientists??"

Um, I think that's what we did...Too bad they're unethical, ideological cheaters & don't deserve to stand under the mantle of Science. They got busted & they knew it all too well, thus destroyed the raw data (which any true scientist knows is critical).

"Nice try." Indeed.

Wanna try again?

Susannah said...

How did I miss all you other cool guys? I guess Toad's email was on the top of the list b/c his comment was last. Sorry gentlemen.

Joe~ Yeah, I think this is a hill that Big Al is willing to die on. Unfortunately he's not gonna go away so easily.

Bluepit~ Ha! I think you're right! Somehow, I think we've gotten 'too big for our britches' when we think our puny activities have the power to control the earth & the firmament thereof. You can almost hear God chuckling...

Fredd~ Aw, man! Cut a guy a break! ;)

One thing I've observed over the years about BK is that he pulls so hard for conservatism, but he also wears his heart on his sleeve (takes one to know one, see?). When he sees us 'losing,' he gets down in the dumps... He's not depressed these days, btw...Nonetheless, very smart guy.

There. I'm caught up. Thanks for the comments, all!

Carol............. said...

Global warming, unknown flues, and other scare hypes make politicians and special interest groups billions of dollars......and you can guess at whose expense!

Jim said...

I think we've gotten 'too big for our britches' when we think our puny activities have the power to control the earth & the firmament thereof

Guess you never heard about CFCs and the ozone layer.

Jim said...

Jones...said...that during the Medieval Warming Period (1000-1400 AD) the earth may have been warmer than it is now

Actually what he said was that there is not enough evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was of a global extent so no way to tell if it was warmer than the latter half of the 20th century. Since nearly all measurements from the MWP were from the northern hemisphere, there is no data from the southern hemisphere and that the two hemispheres do not always follow each other.

So Kristol is wrong as he almost always is.

Fredd said...

Susannah:

Don't get me wrong, I like BK. I really do, and I know he is as smart as the day is long.

I just cringe when he prognosticates on things like this, he should leave that up to bloggers like you and me. ;-)

Susannah said...

Carol~ Bingo! Seems to me, a lot of the GWmg bruhaha is a thinly veiled shakedown for financial gain.

Jim~ "Guess you never heard about CFCs and the ozone layer."
Sure! I still think we give ourselves more credit than is due when we presume it's all b/c of "us" that geological patterns of the earth happen to shift.

Makes me wonder if folks like you ever heard of things like Tectonic Plate theory, etc.

(Hint: tectonic plates don't move b/c a bunch of humans lean into the sand on a beach somewhere.)

Also Jim, re: Medieval wmg. pd. relevance to the conversation is salient (regardless of hemispheres) b/c the GW crowd has been INSISTING for the past decade(s) that we're in an "unprecedented period of global warming." Seems to me their claim is inherently weakened if not rendered completely impotent if they 'don't have enough information' to develop a baseline. Kristol is right after all. Hmm...

Fredd~ Gotcha!
"I just cringe when he prognosticates on things like this, he should leave that up to bloggers like you and me. ;-)"
Yes, & I think we're pretty darned good at it! ;)

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

The 'unprecedented' generally refers to the speed of warming, rather than the absolute temperature. In the past, climactic changes have taken centuries or millennia - the warming period we're in now can be measured in decades.

It's the rate of warming which is the problem because biological eco-systems cannot adapt to keep up with the change in climate.

Phil Jones certainly did not turn tail in that interview, by the way, I'm not sure exactly why you think he did?


See, the problem is this; when you see 'record snow falls', you get fixated on the 'snow falls' bit when really it's the 'record' that should be of concern. Climate Change means more (and more unpredictable) extreme weather conditions in specific locations but it is driven by the increase in the global average temperature which is rising.

Cheers,

ExPatMatt said...

Just to be clear, I can totally understand people's resistance to the 'Global Warming Crowd' because they have politicized and sensationalized the whole subject beyond belief. That's their fault.

However, the consensus of climatologists is that the earth is in a rapid warming period that is likely to cause undesirable climactic impacts around the globe.

When you consider the sheer volume off carbon dioxide we, as a species, have put into the atmosphere in the past century it's hardly surprising that it's having an effect.

(for people who think our actions can't have any consequences on the planet, consider putting one drop of mercury - just one, little drop - into a lake. Then do it again the next day and bring a friend who does the same. Every day, bring more people with more teeny-tiny drops of mercury. How long before you wouldn't swim in that lake?

What if someone said that it would be a good idea to cut back on the 'dropping mercury in the lake' thing? What do you say? "Hey, it's just one drop!")

Cappy said...

And Billy Kristol is funnier than Al Franken and Seth Myers rolled into one.

Joe said...

If Algore is not going away, maybe he WILL di....oh, wait...that's not nice.

Susannah said...

Matt~ Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them. I've thought about the 'rate of warming' issue before. And it does raise questions. The problem I have is the politicizing, sensationalizing & attempt @ downright extortion. But now, claiming that "the warming period we're in now can be measured in decades" can no longer even be supported (thus Dr. Jones turning tail), due to the lack of empirical evidence from the past several decades (all the data is gone, see? on purpose? I wonder.).

I am not suggesting that we ignore the environment - I believe we should be good stewards of the gifts God gave us. (My family recycles, we use cloth grocery bags, try to minimize electricity use, etc.) However, the narcissistic, 'humans are the center of the universe' assumptions of the 'GW crowd' get on my very last nerve.

Susannah said...

Cap! Hey, good to see you! Billy Crystal...hmmm? ;)

Now, now Joe...what would your Mama say? :)

Jim said...

Makes me wonder if folks like you ever heard of things like Tectonic Plate theory, etc.

Tectonic plates? When did that happen?

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

"The problem I have is the politicizing, sensationalizing & attempt @ downright extortion."

And that's fair enough. But, honestly, is there a single avenue of human endeavor that hasn't been politicized, sensationalized and used to make people rich?
It doesn't change the facts.

"But now, claiming that "the warming period we're in now can be measured in decades" can no longer even be supported (thus Dr. Jones turning tail), due to the lack of empirical evidence from the past several decades (all the data is gone, see? on purpose? I wonder.)"

All the data is gone? When did this happen? There is very substantial and compelling evidence in research labs all around the world that confirms the current warming trend and climatologists are near unanimous that the current rate of warming is something we should be taking note of.

There is some disagreement over the exact causes and mechanics of the process but that's because... climatology is very hard!

"However, the narcissistic, 'humans are the center of the universe' assumptions of the 'GW crowd' get on my very last nerve."

I don't think that rhetoric is particularly useful. We clearly do have an impact on the life-cycles of our planet and we clearly do emit enough pollution to make changes (however small) in the climactic system. The real question is what kind of redundancies are built into the global climate - is it robust enough to stay stable in the face of such a rapid change in atmospheric composition.

Time will tell.

Susannah said...

Matt~
"I don't think that rhetoric [that the GW crowd gets on my last nerve] is particularly useful."

You are correct. Though usefulness it called into question, it doesn't 'change the fact!'

The rest of that paragraph is well stated, & I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly, believe it or not. ;) Time will indeed tell.

sig94 said...

"All the data is gone? When did this happen? There is very substantial and compelling evidence in research labs all around the world that confirms the current warming trend and climatologists are near unanimous that the current rate of warming is something we should be taking note of."

Sweet Christmas where have you been? There has been no warming at all for the past 15 years now according to Dr. Jones. And the entire "hockey stick" data used to to bring the whole farce to a boil is now declared missing. Get a brain will ya?

The only way these thieves can get their hands on more money is to perpetuate the hysterical rush to global warming. Data from China and Russia has been manipulated. Temperature recording sites have been compromised by their placement near heat exchangers, asphalt parking lots and buildings that suck up heat during the day.

The whole thing is a scam, a fraud and should be investigated as such.

Z said...

And, today, there is news that the oceans are NOT rising as first warned against........
We have to be careful when we say there's no warming, or cooling...there is and always will be, it's what causes it that's the main source of contention, human or cycles...

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

"I don't think that rhetoric [that the GW crowd gets on my last nerve] is particularly useful."

It was actually the "narcissistic, 'humans are the center of the universe'" bit that I was referring to! No worries though.


sig94

"Get a brain will ya?"

I think that's fairly unnecessary and infantile, don't you?


"Sweet Christmas where have you been? There has been no warming at all for the past 15 years now according to Dr. Jones."

Dr. Jones did not say that there has been 'no warming at all for the past 15 years' at all.

He was asked; "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

To which he responded;

"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."

He said that there has been warming over the past 15 years, but it is such a short timescale - when talking about the climate - that it does not constitute a statistically significant trend. For that, you need to expand the time period to cover a wider data set (more data = more statistically significant results).

I have a brain and I'm using it to actually read and understand what people are saying. What are you using yours for? :)



Z,

Do you have a source for that news?

Thanks,

Joe said...

What I like is how the "scientists", and Algore and the liberals in general yelled and yelled, "IT'S GLOBAL WARMING YOU *s. CAN'T YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? IT'S GLOBAL WARMING...SEE? GLOBAL WARMING!

"Oh, well it didn't stay warm. Let's just change the emphasis to 'Climate Change'."

It wasn't climate change before, it was GLOBAL WARMING and they absolutely INSISTED on it.

Oooops!

ExPatMatt said...

Joe,

It's still global warming and it's still climate change. It depends on the context.

Global warming is what the net increase in the global average temperature is called.

This warming is understood to be due to a range of influences from the seas, the Sun, CO2 emissions (the Greenhouse effect) and others.

Climate change is the result of that warming.

Simple.

Of course, it's not as dramatic as using ALL CAPS and pretending that the media (& Al Gore) = the scientific field of climatology, is it?

Oooops!

ExPatMatt said...

Nothing from 'sig94' or 'Z'?

Shame.

Susannah said...

Sig~ Sweet Christmas, again!

Z~ As for the notion that weather stations are/were tainted & the science was bad from the get-go, I believe there are plenty of links like this to satisfy Matt. No?

Matt~ If data is not statistically significant even @ 0.05%, it's not meaningful data. For Dr. Jones to state that his data (that nobody seems to be able to find now) was 'quite close' to 0.05% level of significance means that it is NOT SIGNIFICANT.

If he really wanted to prove his case, then he would remove himself from activism & seek legitimate data, significant @ the 0.01% level of significance. Every scientist worth his/her salt knows that's the strongest case.

When the GW science can use legitimate data, not tainted by ill-positioned weather stations, and they find a pattern of 0.01% statistical significance, THEN I'll perk up. Until then, it's all about extortionist activism, imo.

Now, whether you all agree or not, I believe I've made sufficient use of my brain for one morning.

Susannah said...

Maybe I didn't use my brain sufficiently.

Sig, I lost your link... Here it is (let's hope!)

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

Your 'plenty of links like this' link;

I'm not sure how reliable a source 'Newsbusters' is, but whatever.

The author's main beef seems to be that a weather station was placed in a location where it would receive unusually inflated heat due to the proximity of a cliff wall.

So?

Weather stations are not set up to record absolute temperatures (at least not when used for long-term climatology), they're set up to record net increases/decreases at a given location. As long as the station was maintained at that same location for a number of years (with minimal change to the surrounding area, it doesn't matter if it was in shade, direct sunlight or next to a thermal vent - it's the relative increase/decrease that matters.

The fact that the author doesn't understand this, very basic, principle makes me doubt their qualifications to appropriately comment on this subject.

The same goes for the second article as well.

I know it's Wiki, but this is a good place to start if you want to learn more about how global temperatures are derived;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_
record#Calculating_the_
global_temperature

I was asking Z for a reference to his 'the seas aren't rising' comment, by the way. Any idea where they got that from?

Cont...

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

"Matt~ If data is not statistically significant even @ 0.05%, it's not meaningful data."

Where do you get the 0.05% figure from? Dr. Jones said the data did not meet the 95% significance level, not the 99.95% significance level (which I don't think any practical science hopes to achieve in real-world data!).


"For Dr. Jones to state that his data (that nobody seems to be able to find now) was 'quite close' to 0.05% level of significance means that it is NOT SIGNIFICANT."

Again, he didn't say that (0.05%). And again could you point me to this source that says that all the data has gone missing? Please.
'Not significant' means that the data set is too small - which it is if you only look at 15 years. However, data is available for a much longer period than that and the statistical significance of that data set is above 95%.

"If he really wanted to prove his case, then he would remove himself from activism & seek legitimate data, significant @ the 0.01% level of significance. Every scientist worth his/her salt knows that's the strongest case."

I'm sorry, what? You think that practical scientists seek out a statistical significance level of 99.99% for real-world data? Where did you get that from?!

I do agree that scientists should stay out of activism/politics though.

"When the GW science can use legitimate data, not tainted by ill-positioned weather stations,"

I've already shown that the position of weather stations is irrelevant when considering long-term trends.

"and they find a pattern of 0.01% statistical significance, THEN I'll perk up. Until then, it's all about extortionist activism, imo."

Well, you're not likely to find any scientist in any field of practical science who can claim 99.99% statistically accuracy for their data - so don't hold your breath!

Cheers,

Susannah said...

Matt~ My mistake: I shouldn't have put the "%" sign behind 0.05 & 0.01. Sorry.

Without my mistake the stat. significance of data would have read 5% & 1% significance, respectively. This means that if a set of data (derived over whatever length of time, from whatever sources - tainted or not) does not meet even a 5% level of stat. significance, then there is a greater than 5% chance that the data could be pure accident. Data that does not meet this -- lowest -- standard of statistical significance is NOT MEANINGFUL scientifically. (See this article for further info.)

Could data @ 0.07 or 0.10 indicate a trend?? Perhaps, but broad-sweeping theoretical maxims cannot be inferred from such. It would simply mean that MORE STUDY must be done, more scientific data MUST be collected to discover the validity of any hypothesis.

Which, btw is what Mr. Kristol says at the end of this piece. So now we're back where we started, eh?

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

Thanks for clearing that up!

The point of that whole comment though, was that with the data from only the past 15 years you cannot claim stat. significance. But like I said, there is data going back a lot further than that, so it's really irrelevant.

This is what he was asked;

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

And the honest answer is, that with only 15 years-worth of data, no, there is no statistical significance.

But nobody is developing 'broad-sweeping theoretical maxims' from 15 years-worth of data, are they?

I mean, ice-core sample can give us data on arctic temperatures going back 650,000 years. Dendrochronology can give us data for a thousand years or so (I think). Then there's coral growth, melt-water sediments and a bunch of other sources.

This is not easy science and there are always going to be difficulties to overcome.

I'm not 100% convinced of global warming/climate change either. I do think further study is needed and the over-politicization of it needs to stop.

My concern is the pseudo-scientific bunk that's being peddled around that pretends to be actual science when really it's just another ideology wrapped up in a lab coat. It's no different/better than folk like Al Gore.

Just so we're clear!

Cheers,