Hockeystick Broken!

[Shady]

Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climategate scandal, has for the first time admitted that the Medieval Warm Period could have been warmer than the present day

"Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.

But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period."

Link

I'm glad that he's finally admitted it. What will be interesting, will be to see what Al Gore has to say now. After all, he made a movie that was based around the hockeystick model. A model which now has been put to rest.

R.I.P Hockeystick

[bush_cheney2004]

This is the end

Beautiful friend

This is the end

My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end

Of everything that stands, the end

No safety or surprise, the end

I'll never look into your eyes...again

- Jim Morrison

[Guest TrueMetis]

Try linking to the actual story, not some blog

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

I also confused what you are trying to say. He doesn't say any of the data is wrong so what's you point?

Edited February 13, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

Try linking to the actual story

Ok.

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ok.

Nice try.

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.

All he's admited to is not being organized while you have been shown yourself to be a fool and a dishonest one at that.

Edited February 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[BubberMiley]

Meanwhile, polar ice is melting faster than even the most pessimistic predicted. But the deniers don't like reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meanwhile, polar ice is melting faster than even the most pessimistic predicted. But the deniers don't like reality.

The reality is that polar ice has always melted....time after time. Imagine that....

[Shady]

Meanwhile, polar ice is melting faster than even the most pessimistic predicted. But the deniers don't like reality.

Complete lie. You're the one denying reality. But don't try and change the subject. Has there been significant warming since 1995? Phil Jones says no. Are you gonna deny the stated opinion from an actual climate scientist? Stupid denier.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Complete lie. You're the one denying reality. But don't try and change the subject. Has there been significant warming since 1995? Phil Jones says no. Are you gonna deny the stated opinion from an actual climate scientist? Stupid denier.

Are you going to reply to my post or are you really that intellectually dishonest?

[Shady]

All he's admited to is not being organized

What in the world are you talking about? He admitted that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming from 1995 to now. Nothing about not being organized. Again, I'll repeat what he admitted. There hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What in the world are you talking about? He admitted that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming from 1995 to now. Nothing about not being organized. Again, I'll repeat what he admitted. There hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years.

Because it hasn't been long enough to be statistically significant there has been a warming. You are implying it is because it has not been warming that is intellectually dishonest, as is posting something as a full qoute when it is not.

once again.

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.

[Shady]

Because it hasn't been long enough to be statistically significant there has been a warming.

But I thought the science was settled? Remember? Global warming was fact. And now, he's finally admitting that no real warming has taken place for 15 years.

Anyways, looks like the U.N. climate panel has admitted to another "error." Is it just me, or is this now a daily event?

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw

OSLO (Reuters) - The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.

Link

Is this more of the so-called science that we were suppose to have believed in?

[Guest TrueMetis]

But I thought the science was settled? Remember? Global warming was fact. And now, he's finally admitting that no real warming has taken place for 15 years.

Your dense aren't you? That is not what he is saying.

[waldo]

Your dense aren't you? That is not what he is saying.

It's quite "warming" to see Shady floundering about... that he would even adjust his signature to magnify his own ignorance, to pronounce it "loudly and proudly", is hysterically profound!

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes

Shady fails to understand what "statistically significant" actually means... it's not a purposeful fabrication on Shady's part since that would presume he has some grasp on the debate - something beyond his simplistic cut/paste tactics.

it's even better when you recognize Shady is actually wanting to leverage what CRU data presents... when Shady has gone out of his way, every which way, to denigrate EAU, CRU and it's data. Suddenly... Shady wants to value that CRU data - go figure!

the profound Shady ignorance doesn't understand that "statistically significant" relates to the 95% confidence level... that the hadCRUT 0.15 degrees centigrade warming since 1995 settles in at a 93% confidence level. Shady's all about that 2% (don't let Phil Jones', "only just", reference cloud your understanding... hey Shady?)

let's also not have Shady highlight the significant distinction that CRU data holds as compared to the other surface temperature data sets... where CRU data is 'less warm' than any other data sets (like NASA's GISSTEMP, for example)... 'less warm' since it doesn't include any data from the polar regions where the most significant warming is occurring. Why have Shady bring that little nuance forward... so inconvenient, for Shady.

let's also not have Shady highlight what the other temperature data sets present over that same period... so inconvenient, for Shady.

let's also not have Shady highlight the relative short-term 15 year interval... shorter-trending is much preferred, by Shady.

should you happen to glance at a Shady post - should you happen to read his new signature -

just think of how Phil Jones has punked Shady!

[Shady]

the profound Shady ignorance doesn't understand that "statistically significant" relates to the 95% confidence level... that the hadCRUT 0.15 degrees centigrade warming since 1995 settles in at a 93% confidence level. Shady's all about that 2% (don't let Phil Jones', "only just", reference cloud your understanding... hey Shady?)

Exactly. Even with their manipulated data, they couldn't achieve the 95% confidence level. That's pretty telling. Imagine what that the analysis would look like with uncooked data. Wouldn't even be close.

[waldo]

Exactly. Even with their manipulated data, they couldn't achieve the 95% confidence level. That's pretty telling. Imagine what that the analysis would look like with uncooked data. Wouldn't even be close.

Shady, your reply hits a home run on the Shady lame back-pedaling scale - well done! Would you like a shovel to get yourself out from the hole you're digging - even deeper. Shady... why didn't they just cook that data, oooooohhhhh just a little ole 2% more. Shady, why did Phil Jones set you up? The Phil Jones punking of Shady!

Shady, while we're having fun here... even though they botched that remaining 2% cook, what data cookery are you speaking to. C'mon, Shady - let's have your best cut&paste... line er up!

[Shady]

what data cookery are you speaking to.

This kind.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Link

And that's not even getting into "hiding the decline" and computer models with "fudge factors" and much of the other corruption and dishonesty illustrated from the emails and leaks from the EAU and CRU and IPCC. It's all BS!

[Shady]

Looks like I'm vindicated once again.

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

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’.

Link

This is getting ridiculous now, how is it that you true-believers continue to deny the obvious hoax and fraud this con-man is perpetuating? This guy has more excuses than O.J. Simpson for Christ sake!

[bush_cheney2004]

...This is getting ridiculous now, how is it that you true-believers continue to deny the obvious hoax and fraud this con-man is perpetuating? This guy has more excuses than O.J. Simpson for Christ sake!

"My dog ate the data". LOL!

[Shady]

"My dog ate the data". LOL!

You're right! That's exactly what it amounts to.

[waldo]

This kind.

And that's not even getting into "hiding the decline" and computer models with "fudge factors" and much of the other corruption and dishonesty illustrated from the emails and leaks from the EAU and CRU and IPCC. It's all BS!

the continued punking of Shady! Standard cut&paste from Shady - where you haven't a clue about the actual discussion topics. British "Journalists" Jonathan Leake and David Rose... "Journalismgate"... helping in the continued punking of Shady.

Shady, we've had several MLW threads where other "morans" like you have presumed to attack the credibility of surface temperature records... we've long since dispatched with the nonsense of UHI - Urban Heat Island... possibly save yourself further embarrassment next time and search MLW first. One of the most recent MLW threads/posts ------- On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record - Menne et al 2010

Shady, only the most fervent bot even bothers to trot out the "hide the decline" meme anymore... long since dispatched. However, your bleat about "model fudge factors" isn't one particularly beat upon much here - certainly, we should hear more from you on that... let's have your best cut&paste - bring it on, Shady.

[waldo]

Shady, I somewhat infrequently post directly from blogs... but let's have a bit of tit-for-tat cut&paste. I could give a rats-patooey whether you actually have the balls to read these - if you do... pay particular attention to the short snippet titled Media distortions in the first link:

IPCC errors: facts and spin

following in the fine traditions of dishonest journalism... the British journalist you just linked to in your preceding post, Johnathan Leake... is highlighted in the following article over his brazen dishonesty around the so-called "Amazongate":

“AmazonGate”: how the denial lobby and a dishonest journalist created a fake scandal