Question by Richie: Why another U-turn as scientist at centre of row finally admits there has been no global warming since 1995?
How can any alarmist ever believe in this junk when this top guy from the IPCC admits that:
* 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’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
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.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Answer by Benjamin
Phil Jones never said that “there has been no global warming since 1995”. And here is the transcript to the actual interview from which the Daily Mail took a quote out of context and spun it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
What he actually says was that the climate has been warming an average of 0.12°C per decade over the past 15 years.
Such warming is exceptional and falls within the 93 percentile. However, in statistics, it’s the 95 percentile that is “significant.” Therefore, according to Phil Jones, from 1995 to the present, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming.
Jones also stated, “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
“Significant” and “statistically significant” are two different things. Phil Jones should have been more careful explaining this and should have assumed that (A) most people don’t understand statistics; and (B) the denial machine would try to spin what he said and present a misunderstanding to those who don’t really understand science or math.
Add your own answer in the comments!