Post of the month
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote:
>
> > the Daily Mail, has taken another body blow with the
> > paper publishing a false story claiming that Phil
> > Jones had admitted that there had been no global
> > warming since 1995.
>
> The original interview with Jones is here:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
>
> I really do believe it is an extraordinary interview.
> It's not just some of things that Jones says, it's
> also the fact that it is a story carried by the BBC
> and by Roger Harrabin of all people. "The times they
> are a changin'".
>
> This is one of the questions:
>
> "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has
> been no statistically-significant global warming"
>
> His answer? Yes, he DOES agree. So, quite simply, this
> is NOT (in this respect) a "false story". He adds to
> this by stating that any warming signal in this period
> is not statistically significant, just as any cooling
> from 2002 is not statistically significant.
>
> It might not be too far off the mark then to say that
> temperatures from 1995 have been pretty "flat"
> (according to Jones). As I recall, when I mentioned
> something to this effect a year or so ago, Do-reflex
> appeared to think I was so batty I must have just
> dropped in from Mars...
>
> This was enormously significant too:
>
> "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?"
>
> Although he huffs and puffs a bit, the answer is again
> yes, he does agree.
>
> Why is that so significant? Well it brings to the
> surface something that is not widely acknowledged in
> the media: In all the glib talk of consensus, one fact
> that IS generally accepted by climate scientists is
> that a warming period began after the end of the "mini
> ice age" (ie 1860 or so) and BEFORE industrial and
> post-industrial societies had had a chance to puff out
> too much CO2. So here he is confirming this.
>
> If warming was occurring in 1860, then this suggests
> that any CO2 component of warming in recent times is
> likely to be a "forcing" superimposed on an underlying
> warming trend (which we don't really understand). This
> means that attempting to evaluate empirically
> ("scientifically") the CO2 component in the data we
> have (which is turning out to be very limited and of
> dubious quality anyway) becomes a fiendishly tricky
> and complex task. Possibly impossible. And certainly
> not possible to the degree that warmists are fond of
> claiming.
>
> Of course you may think "CO2 induced climate change"
> is true *a priori*". But if you do so, it's hardly
> reasonable of you to claim the rational and scientific
> high ground, is it? To bandy about phrases such as
> "flat earthers" and "deniers" for those who have less
> faith in your *a priori* methodology?
>
> Or again you may think that facts about glaciers and
> polar bears etc are the experimental proof for the CO2
> conjecture. But all such talk looks suspiciously like
> "modus morons"! Viz:
>
> "If P is True, Q will be the case"
> "Q is true"
> "Therefore P is true"
>
> The error is in the first statement, which for global
> warmers needs to be modified to:
>
> "Only if P is True, Q will be the case"
>
> And that's where the events of 1860 (or the medieval
> warm period) assume their significance.
>
