ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones admits no Global Warming

[asur]

This is huge news and we need to spread the word.

It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong and Phil Jones
appears to be such a person. Jones is one of scientists working at
East Anglia University and the CRU, a university committed
to spreading misinformation about global warming. This misinformation
has been spread by propaganda websites like RealClimate.org, Science.com
and Nature.com

Make no mistake, Phil Jones was one of main players and now he is on
record admitting there is was no global warming for the past 15 years!

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

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.


Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fd5OIsDM

Lean more about Global Warming scams at: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9609

 

[rationalist]

What do you mean he 'admits' no global warming?

You mean he 'thinks' no global warming.

 

[citizenzen]

This is huge news and we need to spread the word.

It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong and Phil Jones
appears to be such a person.

Yes, asur, please spread the word. Just make sure you spread the whole word. From an article in today's Guardian UK... (please note the areas I bolded)

Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable'
Head of the Climate Research Unit at the University East Anglia says he would consider correcting his paper on the degree of warming in China

The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.

He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.

"I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services."

He said he would consider submitting a correction to the journal. "I will give that some thought. It's worthy of consideration."

But he said that "the science still holds up". A subsequent study confirmed the original conclusion - that the global warming trend was not significantly affected by urbanisation - and showed that the precise location of the weather stations was not important.

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."​

Asur, it would appear that you qualify as being one of those critics "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow[ing] them out of all proportion".

 

[asur]

Citizen - here are the important points supported by Phil Jones words:

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

 

[dogtowner]

Citizen - here are the important points supported by Phil Jones words:

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

game
set
match

from the horse's mouth

 

[citizenzen]

Citizen - here are the important points supported by Phil Jones words...

Hmmm... you seem to be ignoring these words from Phil Jones himself...

But he said that "the science still holds up".

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Hmmm... you seem to be ignoring these words from Phil Jones himself...

But he said that "the science still holds up".

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."​

Maybe that, there learnin'-stuff needs to be more FUNdamental, for the Tea-Baggers.



***

The ATMOSPHERE!!

 

[Gipper]

The results are in and the Warmers are a bunch of F-ing liars and fools. I told you so. But, no doubt, some delusional idiots will continue to believe no matter the facts. It is no wonder dictators take over countries with mental midgets like this walking the Earth.

All the lies are categorized here...

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

 

[citizenzen]

The results are in and the Warmers are a bunch of F-ing liars and fools.

Well, I'm sure glad that's settled.

 

[Gipper]

Well, I'm sure glad that's settled.

Your response is not very convincing.

 

[OldTrapper]

But he said that "the science still holds up". A subsequent study confirmed the original conclusion - that the global warming trend was not significantly affected by urbanisation - and showed that the precise location of the weather stations was not important.

Yes, such little things such as placing weather stations in the middle of a paved parking lot where they absorb more heat; next to the exhaust of an air conditioner where they absorb more heat; etc., are not "important" enough to be considered.

Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

Yes, lies about how glaciers are melting, and Antartica is disappearing. Minor things like that.

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."

Yep, they just have to believe Al Gore, and his proven lies. Then too, they just have to ignore all of the scientists that disagree with them, and suppress their findings.

Asur, it would appear that you qualify as being one of those critics "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow[ing] them out of all proportion".

According to you anything that does not support your ideology is "minor".

 

[citizenzen]

Your response is not very convincing.

Neither was the post I responded to.

 

[citizenzen]

According to you anything that does not support your ideology is "minor".

Since none of the quotes were attributed to me, I'm curious where you come up with such a conclusion. Please show me any post where I've said evidence that does not support climate change is "minor".

Once again, a conservatives plays the game of telling me what I think and believe in.

 

[OldTrapper]

Since none of the quotes were attributed to me, I'm curious where you come up with such a conclusion. Please show me any post where I've said evidence that does not support climate change is "minor".

Once again, a conservatives plays the game of telling me what I think and believe in.

Was it not you that said this:


"Asur, it would appear that you qualify as being one of those critics "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow[ing] them out of all proportion". "

Of course, the "minor things" Asur was addressing were points that do not support your belief, but what the heck.

 

[Stalin]

Jones does not collect data, he analyses it.

I know that the distinction is probably lost on the ignorant conspiracy theorists whio infest this site, but why don't we hear what he actually said...

""...On 27 January 2010, the Information Commissioner's Office stated that the emails showed that requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by retired engineer David Holland were not dealt with properly by the UEA. Holland had been trying to get information giving support to his theory that the unit had broken IPCC rules in trying to discredit sceptic scientists. The Times said that the CRU had attempted to "thwart requests for scientific data and other information", and that evidence suggests that "senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests."[9]

In a later interview Jones said that e-mails which appeared to suggest withholding data had expressed his irritation at the large numbers of requests which disrupted his team's work. He said "We were clearly being targeted" and that as most of the information requested was already available online, "I think they just wanted to waste our time". He now accepted that he should have taken the requests more seriously, and said "I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way. In a way, I misjudged the situation." He said that no data were destroyed. “We have no data to delete. It comes to us from institutions around the world. We interpret data. We don’t create or collect it. It’s all available from other sources." Jones added that "I am obviously going to be much more careful about my emails in future. I will write every email as if it is for publication. But I stand 100% behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data, and I look forward to proving that to the Sir Muir Russell inquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)

Comrade Stalin