Since no one else seems to want to post it
-
Do you realise what an about face this was for Jones, to say the things he did in the Mail interview? For years he has worked as the OFFICIAL provder of data to the IPCC. The WORLDS EXPERT BODY on GW. He is probably one of the singly most important people in this field. For him to say, after being suspended pendig the enquiry, that: 1) The recent warming is stastically indifferent from the preceding three. (In temrs of rate and magnitude) 2) There has been no statistical warming since 1995. 3) The scientific debate is open. Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics. All sceptics want is cool headed debate and a better understanding of the science. What they dont want is endless fear stories and hysterical ranting directed against them. Which is too often the case. Jones has effectively given them this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
you say it's garbage
THats a lie. Prove it if you can, if not retract.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics.
It's remarkable because he agrees with you? Do you not see the inconsistency here? The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics.
It's remarkable because he agrees with you? Do you not see the inconsistency here? The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's remarkable because he agrees with you?
Yeah, he phoned me up befoire hand and asked me what to say.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you not see the inconsistency here?
With me and about half the population?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's remarkable because he agrees with you?
Yeah, he phoned me up befoire hand and asked me what to say.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you not see the inconsistency here?
With me and about half the population?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
I'll be interested to see your reaction if he changes his stance again... Would you still consider him a valuable source if he spoke in favor of the AGW theory?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Bob Emmett wrote:
There are other sources
Being GISS and NCDC, both of whose teams were in constant communicaiton with Jones over the decades sharing 'tricks' and so on thus making their findings equally suspect. As for THEIR original data it is at least available. And if you look at it the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actualy show an inconsistent pattern of somw warming, some cooling.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Well nows your chance. If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with aome solid facts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Being GISS and NCDC ... As for THEIR original data it is at least available.
As I said, there are other sources.
fat_boy wrote:
And if you look at it, the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact, the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actually show an inconsistent pattern of some warming, some cooling.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
fat_boy wrote:
Well now's your chance.
My chance? I was suggesting that that you take up the subject of warming trends with someone who has studied climate science.
fat_boy wrote:
If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with some solid facts.
The shenanigans of Jones does not disprove his hypothesis. I must leave it to someone who has studied climate science to disprove.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
So what ? Anyone who wants to believe otherwise will feel this proves the conspiracy. I;d have said that even if I was posting before fat boy proved it true
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.