Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Walls Begin to Crumble
Former director of the discredited University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, lets slip some discouraging words in this BBC interview here.
1) Asked about whether he lost track of [Hockey Stick graph supporting raw] data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.'
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: '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.'
[...]
'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm thantoday, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.' (So much for the science is settled).
A decade ago many of these statements would have been dismissed as Denier propaganda.
Let me respond in order.
1) If you don't have the raw data supporting your reconstruction, your reconstruction is unreliable. This is basic science.
2) It's only a blip if there is something interfering with the inexorable rising trend the Warmies believe is caused by rising CO2 levels. However, what could be interferring other than natural climate forcings? If natural forcings can stop AGW in its tracks for a decade and a half (and counting), how can you say that the modest rise in temperature during the 20th Century wasn't caused by natural forcings?
3) Look at these two trends in the graph! Which was natural and which was man-made?
4) As I just stated, the Medieval Warm Period was real, worldwide and warmer than today. Phil Jone's admission that the Medieval Warm Period existed in "North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia" is necessarily a partial refutation of the Hockey Stick and miles further than any Warmie would go just a few years ago.
The whole rotten edifice of scary AGW is disintegrating in real time before our happy eyes.
Thank God.
1) Asked about whether he lost track of [Hockey Stick graph supporting raw] data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.'
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: '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.'
[...]
'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm thantoday, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.' (So much for the science is settled).
A decade ago many of these statements would have been dismissed as Denier propaganda.
Let me respond in order.
1) If you don't have the raw data supporting your reconstruction, your reconstruction is unreliable. This is basic science.
2) It's only a blip if there is something interfering with the inexorable rising trend the Warmies believe is caused by rising CO2 levels. However, what could be interferring other than natural climate forcings? If natural forcings can stop AGW in its tracks for a decade and a half (and counting), how can you say that the modest rise in temperature during the 20th Century wasn't caused by natural forcings?
3) Look at these two trends in the graph! Which was natural and which was man-made?
4) As I just stated, the Medieval Warm Period was real, worldwide and warmer than today. Phil Jone's admission that the Medieval Warm Period existed in "North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia" is necessarily a partial refutation of the Hockey Stick and miles further than any Warmie would go just a few years ago.
The whole rotten edifice of scary AGW is disintegrating in real time before our happy eyes.
Thank God.
Labels: Global Warming Hoax; The End of the Beginning
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 2:32 PM 
