Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

AGW has turned into religion for some because it supported their beliefs that man does not belong on earth, and the solutions also reinforced their beliefs in higher taxes and more central control.
The other main proponent in the AGW movement and came much later to the table and that is big business and Wall Street, they saw huge $ to be made in all of the government involvement and sellling of carbon offsets etc.
It is amazing how fast it has unraveled. It is dead politically in the US.

 

But on the flip side all liberals ,myself included,have been persuaded by watching "Inconvenient Truth" and trusting Gores opinion.
After examining the facts, mostly presented here,I concluded the Cons are correct on this issue.
I think C&T is a scam invented by Enron and now pushed by Goldman Sachs.
The 2 most evil corporations that ever existed.
Amost everything they have had their fingers in is a BS ripoff.Im not exaggerating.

 

The first time I watched An Inconvenient Truth Gore had me right where he wanted me. Probably not a good comparison, but Adolf Hitler always said if your going to tell a lie tell a really big one and stick to it like glue. Eventually it may be truth.

I think we were only months away from cap-and-trade being signed into law.

 

"AGW has turned into religion for some because it supported their beliefs that man does not belong on earth, and the solutions also reinforced their beliefs in higher taxes and more central control."


This is the most ridiculous statement on the entire forum!

 

Baloney, I spend a good chunk of time around hard-core environmentalists and that belief is in their DNA, it is like catholic guilt. As for another chunk of folks that are socialist/communist, the AGW movement moves the world towards their vision, think audi Super bowl commerical and the "green police".

 

That is even more ridiculous! At least the first silly statement use the modifier of "some".

Feel free to believe this BS if you wish,

Carry on!

 

So you don't believe some people think that man changing his environment is bad? Obviously you think that man's carbon creation is bad, I know of several that think that all of man's creations are bad.

 

I concede that as well.
After witnessing the personality cult that swelled around Obama,its easy to observe the AGW movement having some of the same cult characteristics.
Ignoring facts critical of the cause ,was a big part of Obama supporters make up.
And yes ,Im an Obama voter and supporter.

 

If you are dismissing global warming science based on the posts here, I would strongly encourage you to do some different research. Regardless of which side you're on, internet forums (especially ones dedicated to cars...) are not generally considered great resources on science.

There are some posts here that do link to actual research and not opinion pages...

 

Thread resurrection alert! Beware of zombies!

Anyway I must apologize for bumping this particular thread, because it was not one of our most, er, polite and fact filled.

But it began with with reference to an American Thinker editorial discussing Phil Jones. Two subjects were emphasized; lack of statistically significant surface air temperature increases in recent decades, and the paleo-reconstruction often called the hockey stick. I mean to talk about only the former, as I have already suggested at PC that glacial coring trumps both millenial reconstructions and MWP anecdotes.

So, the news last year was that Phil Jones did not find statistically significant (P<0.05) in the recent decades. At the time this was widely regarded as a climate-change coffin nail.

But now, with 2010 data added, the recent-decades trend is significant at p<0.05, according to Dr. Jones

Not sure this makes much difference to me, because of the many other trends (besides surface air temps) that show warming in recent decades. However, I expect it to be be widely covered by all the organizations who made a big deal about the previous report of non significance.

We may begin scanning the horizons for published retractions/revisions.

 

Brains!

In most of these matters you seem to have great common and scientific sense, but here I would disagree with you. Climate gate tended to short circuit scientific method The problem is that it manipulated the data
to make it seem as if the proxy data reconstructions were much more accurate than they were. It involves academic dishonesty, and the hiding of data and methods so that they can not be peer reviewed. In other words we are starting with a rigged experiment, yet we are supposed to pretend that they hypothesis is actually being tested.

Again the nail is the failure of proxy data, coupled with a conspiracy to remove peer review.

I think you need to discount anything that Dr. Jones does now. If someone group does a legitimate reconstruction they can review and check that, but again the temperature records in the last 50 years only have minor disagreements. Older records need to be done.

I don't think the 2005 or 2010 temperature records make that much difference.

I think the 2009 mann paper, along with peer review pretty much corrected some of the data misrepresentation. It also included the LIA, MWP, and admission of much larger uncertainty in the proxies. In otherwords it corrected the science to what the skeptics were saying. In a normal scientific world with peer review and honest data, these corrections could have been done years ago. Still there is enough politics, which I read as scientific dishonesty, to pretend that the old model was correct and the corrections don't really matter. I think academic honesty has been breeched to such a level by jones that anything that supports him is suspect.. Any apologies need to be done by Jones or other climte gaters.

 

Freedom of information trumps academic freedom | Barbara Hollingsworth | Beltway Confidential | San Francisco Examiner

"Within the next 90 days, UVA must turn over 9,000 documents sent to and from former climatologist Michael Mann, creator of the now debunked “hockey stick†climate graph"

​

 

Thanks mojo. I was wondering how the Culccinelli thing was going. This is certainly a cleaner approach than Culccinelli's CID. In that (and I read it) his failure to cite that National Academy's assessment could have risen to the level of fraud according to his definition thereof. I even sent him an email saying so Got no answer though - maybe he's a bit cautious who he emails

I never thought of emails as inherently priviledged, but others probably do. We may be headed for a sea change on that issue.

Whether insults or offhanded comments in emails are 'actionable', would be a matter for wiser minds than mine.

 

classic example of Ad Hominem
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]