Professor Phil Jones Admits to BBC Global Warming ended in 1995

[strikefalcon]

I thought this would be a bigger story around here in a website full of professional and potential scientists...

"The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."


The rest of the article is here:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


This was huge news to me after the years and years of green this and green that.

 

[Lindley]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

 

[Arrqh]

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."


The rest of the article is here:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Do you have a more credible source that isn't a tabloid? For instance, in an interview at the BBC on Saturday, Phil Jones explicidly states that he believes that the climate has warmed and the cause is human activity:

How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

This is in direct opposition to the claim you're making. He also explained that the reason there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 is because it's too short a timescale to get an accurate trend which is also in direct opposition.

 

[chardman]

We already ripped Strikefalcon to shreds, in that "other" forum.

 

[Canadave]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

Exactly. Even if human-caused global warming is a myth, then, well, what does that mean? Do we then have carte-blanche to rip the environment to shreds? Or should we continue to try to move towards a sustainable society?

At the very least, we only have so much oil, so I think the answer is pretty clear.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

Exactly. Even if human-caused global warming is a myth, then, well, what does that mean? Do we then have carte-blanche to rip the environment to shreds? Or should we continue to try to move towards a sustainable society?

At the very least, we only have so much oil, so I think the answer is pretty clear.

That is never answered, it just becomes a bunch of Al Gore jokes.

 

[Marc]

We already ripped Strikefalcon to shreds, in that "other" forum.

and his article was already debunked when gturner tried in the IPCC so I guess it's time for the mods to get the shotgun and put this thead out it's misery.

 

[CaptainStoner]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

Exactly. Even if human-caused global warming is a myth, then, well, what does that mean? Do we then have carte-blanche to rip the environment to shreds? Or should we continue to try to move towards a sustainable society?

At the very least, we only have so much oil, so I think the answer is pretty clear.

All of this.

Rapid, serious climate change has happened many times in Earth's history, and people are total fools to not take it seriously.
And to sit on that fat, bloated, disingenuous position that deforesting the planet while hugely elevating atmospheric co2 doesn't have an effect on the overall ecosystem is truly dumb.
We have both poles melting, and polar bears are going the way of the dodo, but no, let's just have business as usual.
And what really irks me is how they are using the honesty of science to make their case. The evidence is that humanity is contributing, but because of how science works, it will tend to only claim that the link is "highly likely".
But as already mentioned, the debate over humanity's impact has become a moot point.

I wish people would just be honest, rather than keep up this ridiculous turd polishing. Just say you don't care about the environment if you don't care. Say you're too lazy to recycle if you're too lazy. I think a lot of people just simply have apathy and even contempt for the Earth, and don't care what happens in a few hundred years.

 

[sidious618]

C'mon guys, are you trying to tell me that you don't believe in the vast scientist conspiracy?

 

[Canadave]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

Exactly. Even if human-caused global warming is a myth, then, well, what does that mean? Do we then have carte-blanche to rip the environment to shreds? Or should we continue to try to move towards a sustainable society?

At the very least, we only have so much oil, so I think the answer is pretty clear.

That is never answered, it just becomes a bunch of Al Gore jokes.

Yeah, that's the sad thing. No one cares why it matters, they just want to shout "The scientists\hippies\communists were wrong!" from the rooftops.

 

[Jetfire]

^
We should care about the world we live in. Global warming aside, we need clean/safe energy...if possible and be more efficient with our energy needs.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It seems to me that "green this and green that" make plenty of sense even if global climate change weren't a problem. It's still pollution, which is still bad for the environment, even if only on a local level.

Indeed. Frankly, I can't be bothered to navigate the web of political dealings, lies, shady payments, etc. that surround any given issue. I don't know who to trust or what to believe. I just think that preserving the planetary biosphere and keeping the air and water clean is a no-brainer. Who cares about the whole twisted debate on global warming? Pollution and ravaging of the environment can hardly be a good thing. Environmentalism doesn't and shouldn't need any connection to theories of global warming and the like to be relevant. Protecting and preserving the environment should be an ends in itself.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I wonder if the ice caps melted in those warmer Medieval days.

In any case, I think one Thread on Climate Change is sufficient.