No Warming Since 1995 - Jones?

[former wesleyan]

This is the riposte to the Daily Mails stuff:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag"]YouTube- 8a. Climate Change - supplement[/ame]

[feargach]

And a fine riposte it is, too.

[Fortesbrand]

The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail

Perhaps this has been posted already but I thought to link to this article to show how the centre has collapsed in the AGW front. The article makes the remark that "By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe."

This is from a Canadian paper that, I think, cannot in any way can be said to be in the thrall of energy polluting special interests who are deniers of the greatest catastrophe to confront humanity since the great flood of Gilgamesh.

The recent backtracking of Jones wrt the inability of the climatologists to accurately calculate the actual variance in global temperatures is symptomatic of a defeat in the push to convince the people of the world that we are facing thermogeddon.

If someone rereads this thread they may begin to distinguish the degree to which AGW is validated through belief rather than hard scientific evidence and perhaps may detect the political interest in generating Byzantine institutions (Jones as "politically naive").

Jones has said that instruments have not measured any change since 1995 that has a statistical significance. The certainties that were presented to the international public over the past decade have now evaporated with the revelation of what was behind the curtain of Global Warming.

We have not seen the evidence for "positive feedback mechanisms" that will cook the planet and in the absence of these we have been given increasingly tenuous explanations marinaded in vitriol that have more of the flavour of a propaganda campaign than a sincere effort to address real environmental challenges.

The truth is that we do have environmental, security and economic challenges that generate imperatives to act with greater decisiveness in the areas of renewables, energy efficiency, recycling and pollution.

The AGW movement have taken a science not yet matured and constructed a bugbear with which to grind a number of axes and create a scare to comfortably exploit, for economic and prestigious reasons, modern society's general angst in relation to its engagement with the natural world.

This discussion is becoming tedious now and more reliable science will have to be produced before AGW can be taken with anything other than a grain of salt. We will hear more of this over the coming years as a considerable investment has been made in its promotion but for the moment anyone who has taken any time to look into the antics of its proponents will be wary of the prognostications of those wishing to penalise the use of carbon, the creation of a carbon derivatives market and the even further constriction of areas of our life still unregulated by "concerned and expert" technocrats.

Look to peak oil and the geopolitical instability caused by hydrocarbons if you wish to argue for renewable energy not to AGW - it is a liability to credibility now.

[ibis]

The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail

Perhaps this has been posted already but I thought to link to this article to show how the centre has collapsed in the AGW front. The article makes the remark that "By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe."

This is from a Canadian paper that, I think, cannot in any way can be said to be in the thrall of energy polluting special interests who are deniers of the greatest catastrophe to confront humanity since the great flood of Gilgamesh.

The recent backtracking of Jones wrt the inability of the climatologists to accurately calculate the actual variance in global temperatures is symptomatic of a defeat in the push to convince the people of the world that we are facing thermogeddon.

If someone rereads this thread they may begin to distinguish the degree to which AGW is validated through belief rather than hard scientific evidence and perhaps may detect the political interest in generating Byzantine institutions (Jones as "politically naive").

Jones has said that instruments have not measured any change since 1995 that has a statistical significance. The certainties that were presented to the international public over the past decade have now evaporated with the revelation of what was behind the curtain of Global Warming.

We have not seen the evidence for "positive feedback mechanisms" that will cook the planet and in the absence of these we have been given increasingly tenuous explanations marinaded in vitriol that have more of the flavour of a propaganda campaign than a sincere effort to address real environmental challenges.

The truth is that we do have environmental, security and economic challenges that generate imperatives to act with greater decisiveness in the areas of renewables, energy efficiency, recycling and pollution.

The AGW movement have taken a science not yet matured and constructed a bugbear with which to grind a number of axes and create a scare to comfortably exploit, for economic and prestigious reasons, modern society's general angst in relation to its engagement with the natural world.

This discussion is becoming tedious now and more reliable science will have to be produced before AGW can be taken with anything other than a grain of salt. We will hear more of this over the coming years as a considerable investment has been made in its promotion but for the moment anyone who has taken any time to look into the antics of its proponents will be wary of the prognostications of those wishing to penalise the use of carbon, the creation of a carbon derivatives market and the even further constriction of areas of our life still unregulated by "concerned and expert" technocrats.

Look to peak oil and the geopolitical instability caused by hydrocarbons if you wish to argue for renewable energy not to AGW - it is a liability to credibility now.

Like Tombo, it is necessary for you to give a reason why 1995 is a significant date, as opposed to one cherry-picked because it yields the "right result". So far, no justification has been offered, which leaves it exactly the same as claiming that between 2004 and 2009 there was "no significant change in Irish house prices".

A fine example of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", but I'm sure the irony is wasted.

[feargach]

No to mention the fact that the scammer who invented Climategate, has himself been proven to be a hoaxer.

[PAD1OH]

No to mention the fact that the scammer who invented Climategate, has himself been proven to be a hoaxer.

?

[Fortesbrand]

Like Tombo, it is necessary for you to give a reason why 1995 is a significant date, as opposed to one cherry-picked because it yields the "right result". So far, no justification has been offered, which leaves it exactly the same as claiming that between 2004 and 2009 there was "no significant change in Irish house prices".

A fine example of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", but I'm sure the irony is wasted.

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.
...
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.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The above is an extract from the interview in question.

From what I understand, ibis, the reason why this question was asked was in relation to the hockey stick graphs that were produced that showed precipitous rises as a result of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. However, there has been no statistically significant increase even though CO2 concentrations have risen by at least 10%.

Since 1995 even higher concentrations of CO2 have been recorded in the atmosphere which should, according to the theory, have had profound consequences by now. The question was asked to highlight this discrepancy.

Given the fact that CO2 infrared absorption has diminishing returns at higher concentrations the requirement for runaway positive feedback mechanism was required in order to make it a credible threat - these have not been observed.

Given that science relies on statistics to compile its results your questioning of this branch of mathematics is somewhat ironic - I wonder if that is what you meant by your cryptic remark.

Go figure.

[Fortesbrand]

No to mention the fact that the scammer who invented Climategate, has himself been proven to be a hoaxer.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for you, Feargach, your language is becoming increasingly fixated on negative stereotypes. Someone should tell you that they lied to you.

When someone is committed to a project that they see as worthwhile and have had reassurances that it is what it purports to be then it is important to continue to support it even if there are a number of critics condemning it. However, if it becomes clear that the organisation they are involved in is engaged in malfeasance then the onus is on you to withdraw from it and devote your energies elsewhere or, at a minimum, do your best to rectify the problem. Man up everyman.

[sharper]

Since 1995 even higher concentrations of CO2 have been recorded in the atmosphere which should, according to the theory, have had profound consequences by now.

Here we go again. You're not still trying the "exponential increases predicted!" shtick are you?

What are the "profound consequences" predicted within scientific literature to have occurred by 2010?

[ManOfReason]

Just now some idiot on a BBC show call 'How Earth Made Us' just claimed that the turning to agriculture by pre-historic man prevented an ice-age because of - you guessed it - CO2 and global warming. WTF - is the no end to the hyperbole?