Skip to content

BBC – Phil Jones Interview – The AGW Glacier Loses More Volume

February 13, 2010

Credit where it’s due.  I am steamingly angry seeing my license fee money turned into adverts for the eco-fascists who wish to change our lives through the trojan horse of Anthropological Global Warming, by Richard Black in particular.

However, Richard Harrabin has tabled questions of genuine challenging merit to disgraced UEA CRU head Phil Jones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Jones makes some astonishing admissions within his answers, which the BBC would never have published, or asked a few months ago.  For instance:

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

………So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

THIS IS A STUNNING ADMISSION, MAKE NO MISTAKE.

.

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.

Yes, but only just will do thank you Mr Jones.

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…..

Well, that’s better than Mann’s hockey stick which eradicated it, at least he acknowledges the possibility of a comparable MWP, which is in stark contrast to the climategate emails which show that he was happy to supress the MWP through substituting proxy data.

He also admits that his early data was poorly organised.  This statement, coupled with the “Harry Read Me” file evidence, shows that we are right to be hugely sceptical of the quality and accuracy of the HadCRUT dataset, one of the pillars holding up the AGW temple.

Jones to me has softened his position when compared to the partizan stance he took in many of the emails, for example saying he wanted warming to continue to prove his point:

========================================================
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
===============================================

Perhaps this is a case of once you are out of the kitchen the heat subsides and your head clears.  It is easy to get caught up in a moment, a situation, a momentum, and lose sight of reality.  Just maybe a month of pain, and the threat of some unpalatable conclusions from the enquiry are making Jones re-evaluate his work and his stance.

Advertisements
2 Comments
  1. Bob k permalink

    Politician spin facts. Scientists can not afford even the slightest tainting of truth else they become politicians. Once they compromise their honesty and professionalism and betray the public trust, it’s very difficult to regain that trust no matter what the political leanings of John Q Public might be. An answer bought for the sake of invitations to the proper cocktail parties can always be bought again.

  2. Dave L permalink

    Nice to see the BBC having a go at some journalism for a change instead of the usual ‘We’re all doomed AGW’ tripe they push. I’ll more convinced they mean it when it moves from the BBC web page to the studios and we see an interview on air with some proper questions being asked.
    I could just be cynic but it does seem that they’ve started to let some questions be asked around the time the BBC Review of Impartiallity was announced so it can look like they are impartial…. We wait and see

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: