Posted on 02/14/2010 3:17:13 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here’s the short version of that BBC interview. (Wow? Was it really the BBC?) This major re-framing of the story and admission of facts are part of the ClimateGate Virus epidemic. Journalists are starting to ask better questions, and researchers are starting to give better answers. OK, it’s not exactly a grilling, but neither is Roger Harrabin allowing the UN to promote its scare campaign without a few seriously-pointed questions. This represents almost as big a turnaround for Harrabin as for Jones (which I’ll expand on below). Only two years ago, he claimed skeptics were funded to spread uncertainty, and likened them to tobacco industry lobbyists. How must he feel to suddenly discover they actually had a case worth considering?
Stripped of the extras, Jones’ answers boil down to the following (I’ve added a few things he didn’t say [in square brackets], and skipped some questions ):
A) This recent warming trend was no different from others we have measured. The world warmed at the same rate in 1860-1880, 1919-1940, and 1975-1998. [Kinda cyclical really, every 55-60 years or so, we start another round.]
B and C) There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. But, there has not been a statistically significant cooling since 2001 either. [Ladies and Gentlemen, given the natural volatility of temperatures, we can't be sure that there's been any real warming for 15 years.]
D and E) Natural forces could have caused some of the recent warming, but I’m 100% confident that the warming was due to carbon dioxide, even though I’ll admit that the natural forces thing is a bit outside my area of expertise. See Chapter Nine of AR4 for evidence.
F).Should we be more transparent with data? Well…yes.
G).If it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, does that bust the idea that carbon causes the warming now? Ah… It could have been warmer, we’re not sure, there’s not much evidence, and I won’t answer that part about “busting anything” directly. [Craig Idso has collected enough evidence to cover a world map showing places on nearly every continent that were warmer a thousand years ago, but the warming still could have been regional....]
H) If this warming is not usual (as I pretty much said in A, B and G), why do I think carbon “did it”? See D (again). [That's Assessment Report 4 -- the IPCC document that's being mocked around the world.]
I).Is it reasonable to say that carbon dioxide might not have “done it”? Nope. See D. [That's AR4 again, and try not to notice the extent of the circular reasoning. Thus:
1. The latest warming is not unusual, and it might have been warmer a thousand years ago.
2. Other things might have caused the warming...
3. We assumed carbon dioxide caused the recent warming, then used models to show that... carbon dioxide accounted for the recent warming (you'd never guess).
4. So we've "ruled out all the other causes", even though the models can't explain what happened back in medieval times, or in modern times either (post 1995). All hail Argument from ignorance!]
K).Should we trust that one tree in Yamal? I’m not going to answer that directly either. Ask Keith.
L).I Phil Jones, rely totally on the IPCC (see all the answers that referenced “D”), but don’t ask me about their practises, and whether they bent the rules and acted unscientifically. Ask them. (Why would I check those kinds of things?)
N) The debate is over? Well, some scientists just said that, I’m not sure why, and it’s not really over. Yes the sceptics could be right.
P) My life since ClimateGate? Not much fun.
Q).Why did I hide the decline? Well, the top researchers all knew that tree rings didn’t show rising temperatures after 1960, but I had to draw these graphs for the WMO. The tree rings all measured temperature pretty well before 1960, but after that, the record fell to pieces, so there was no point putting it on the graph. It’s not like I was hiding something. Look, anyone in the public could have asked any dendroclimatologist, or read papers from Nature on tea-breaks, and known straight away that nobody could really explain why tree rings hadn’t grown faster since 1960. [Sure. And it goes without saying that the public would have no problem with the idea that tree rings were good for nearly a thousand years, then failed as thermometers after 1961. It's not like the public would ask, "Why are we trusting tree rings from 1380 or 1780, but not 1980?"]
Compare this with what Roger Harribin wrote for an in-house BBC publication about climate science in late 2007, and you can grasp why he didn’t see this coming and ask these questions five years ago. He said, “we have to get the science right”, but then his rationale for how to do it boiled down to “consensus” and majority opinion. How did the BBC decide what to report? It surveyed 140 climate scientists, which is interesting, because even then, nearly one-in-five of climate scientists thought the IPCC was too alarmist… But, the BBC was assessing scientific evidence as if scientists voted for the Laws of Nature.
fyi
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...
The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.
Download it here...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]
Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58
The fraud has been exposed. Now is the time that we demand that the prosecutions start. If I had committed a teeny tiny bit of fraud today, they would be at my door with handcuffs tomorrow. With this type of unequal justice going in this nation, and world, there is more need than before to demand that justice be achieved.
Thanks so much for adding those links...I may get that DVD.
I think it’s the absolute best one to show the average person...
That is pure fantasy land. The reality is that most skeptics did their work on their own free time. Their own dime. In fact some may have lost normal revenue why they had to devote time to fight the AGW myths. And who was well paid during these enlightened times ? The AGW Warmist, that is who. Almost everything they have accused the skeptics of doing, they in fact were doing.
Could it make sense for Free Republic to draft a email to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and ask them why they are not willing to do as so many other news papers and TV networks in other countries are now following the scam.
The BBC is predominantly staffed with gay leftists, as is the NY Times.
If the BBC continues to look into ClimateGate, then eventually, the NY Times will have to question Global Warming, as well...simply because gay culture mandates a lockstep worldview.
The AP Wire, ABC, CBS, NBC, and a host of local publications take their lead from the NY Slimes.
Crack the BBC and the rest will follow.
The truth will get out and Global Warming will become extinct.
I like what you say...
I think they be close to cracking.
CENTRE OF THE STORM (Global warming hero)
Some interesting background on Steve McIntyre.
Seems like there is trouble in Alice and Wonderland.
No doubt you're familiar with this site. They feature a Medieval Warm Record of the Week. This week it is:
BONIFACE RIVER AREA, Northern Québec, Canada
Reference:
Arseneault, D. and Payette, S. 1997. Reconstruction of millennial forest dynamics from tree remains in a subarctic tree line peatland. Ecology 78: 1873-1883.
Description:
The authors obtained tree-ring and growth-form sequences from more than 300 black spruce (Picea mariana) remains buried in a presently treeless peatland located near the tree line in northern Québec (57°44'N, 76°10'W), which they analyzed to produce a proxy record of climate for this region between AD 690 and 1591. Over the course of this 900-year time period, the trees of the region experienced several episodes of suppressed and rapid growth, indicative of both colder and warmer conditions, respectively, than those of the present. The most striking of the warm periods exhibited what they described as “well-defined boundaries” that extended from AD 860 to 1000, which they associated with the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and which they described as having “exceeded in duration and magnitude” the “20th century warm period.” In addition, on the basis of the then-current annual temperatures at their study site and at the northernmost 20th-century location of the forest, which was 130 km south of their study site, they concluded that the Medieval Warm Period was ~1°C warmer than what it was when they conducted their work, which was concluded about the time when 20th-century warming leveled off and reached a plateau from which there has been no further warming over the ensuing years.
The weekly record includes evidence showing a worldwide event.
Goldman Sachs again....The Great Bubble machine Co...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
