Heartache in Climate Alarmist Land, though, surely they will cover their ears and sing “la la la la la la la”, and refuse to read the information on the Internet
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.
Wow, that’s some good science there, Phil! Makes it rather difficult in reality to say the debate is over when you do not have your evidence, eh?
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.
No one needs to worry about the “hockey stick” model, because it has already been destroyed. Sonicfrog highlights this part of the BBC interview, and has the real graph of the temperatures all the way back into the Global Climate Optimum (which I swiped and is at the bottom). Quite an eye opener, except for the True Believers, who will religiously stick to the approved viewpoint, but still tell us they believe in open science (sic).
Here’s the lottery winners
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. (question G in the BBC interview-link below)
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. (question b)
That’s going to leave a major mark, like a lover handing their significant other an I-hate-you-and-want-a-divorce-since-I-also-love-your-best-friend Valentine’s Day card today.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Gee, you think? I’m not sure about you, but, I find this a pretty damning admission regarding the entire climate alarmism house of cards.
However, just for full transparency, let’s visit the actual BBC interview transcript
E – 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.
Interesting. Back up just a wee bit in the interview
D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
So, he is telling us that he really doesn’t know that much about how climate works, and is simply inferring a man caused relationship because that is what he wants it to be.