Recently, one of the high priests of the lie/ false religion known as Global Warming, "Dr." Phil Jones was interviewed by the BBC in Great Britain. Jones was the head honcho of the CRU, Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. He was one of the ones still holding the hot potato when the Climategate emails, which showed how the "researchers" cooked the books, were revealed to the world.
I have two questions. Number 1: Why isn't he in some holding cell wearing the bracelets of justice and making interesting friends ? and Number 2: Why in the hell do I have to go all the way to England to get any sort of truth in the matter ?
For those of you who don't know, I'm one of Global Warming's greatest critics. I don't just think it's a fraud, I know it's a fraud. I'm savvy enough as a person to see that this gibberish has nothing to do with any sort of coming eco-catastrophe, it has everything to do with lining the pockets of Al Snore, the Supreme Pontiff of the religion, his archbishops Phil Jones and Michael Mann, and last, but not least, the moneychanger Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, who would make a killing from this nonsense once Chairman Obama's beloved Cap and Trade was inflicted upon the victims...I mean, citizens of the United States. Don't get me wrong, there's no greater fan of capitalism, as I, your humble Right Wing Extremist columnist, but crony capitalism that's based on a lie, well, that's another story.
In this interview, which was ignored by the lamestream media in the States, Jones makes several confessions. First, and foremost Jones admits there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Note, this was cut and pasted directly from the BBC website and was unaltered by me in any way, shape, or form.
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
That's right, you read that right. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why doesn't ol' Phil go ahead and tell that EU member nations like Spain that has a 19% unemployment rate because they were basing their entire economy on this garbage, or anyone else in the EU whose utility bills have sky-rocketed because of this boldfaced lie. The .012C that the earth's temperature supposedly rose in that time could be from anything, including solar activity. The last time I checked, the sun has quite a bit to do with the earth's temperature. Moving on....
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Oh no! Break out the Snuggies! We're all going to freeze to death! Well, maybe not, since Jones is right, the sample is too small to be of any real value. However, it kind of makes me wonder, since according to Al Snore and his leftist Hollywood disciples, we have like 10 minutes to save the planet. Hey, Al! I want my money back after watching your lousy movie! Moving on....
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.
Outside his area of expertise ? The man is supposedly a climatologist! Again, I'm forced to add some common sense to this prattle! The sun is the biggest influence on the earth's climate! Hey Phil, if you're game, I'll send you my 4th grade science text book, sure it came from the crappy US public school system that can only turn out McDonald's workers and San Francisco marchers, but at least it taught me how the sun does influence the earth's climate, and more importantly, how to put a condom on a bannana. Moving on....
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.
In a court of law, this would be called a lack of remorse. We just sat through God-knows how much garbage, and then Ol' Philsy says that. See, these people are truly watermelons, green on the outside, and red in the middle, as in commie. Jones is still pushing this charade with one hand, while disproving it with the other. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from that statement is that Jones agrees with the socialist agenda of the lie/ false religion of Global Warming and will keep pushing it to the bitter end. Moving on....
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
In everyday speech, so lackwits like Keith Olbermann can understand, the scammers at CRU have ABSOLUTELY no idea if the Medieval warming period was global or not. If it were, that would mean their trillion dollar house of cards would come crumbling down, wouldn't it ? I would also like to point out that there is no way to determine solar activity from the Medieval Warming Period, either. There are just way too many holes in Jones' rhetoric, aren't there ? Moving on....
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
So, tell me Chairman Obama, the debate is over ? The science is settled ? After all, didn't you say this during the State of Confusion Address:
And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
So the President of the United States is willing to hamstring further the greatest economic system on God's green (and not to mention scientifically proven cooling) earth for what ? I know! Socialism! Do we need any further proof this is not some socialist plot to willy-nilly spread wealth around from the productive citizens and nations to the slackers ?
I've said it before, and you know what, I'll go to my grave saying it. The only debate that's truly over is the fact that lie/ false religion Global Warming is a socialist scam, and jerks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones should be indicted, along with Al Snore. Once these socialist goon bags are rotting in their cells, maybe the world's temperature will go down, since they won't be able to poison our environment with any more of their hot air.