--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > Post of the month >
Too bad it's isolated semantic and interpretive word play that doesn't by any stretch effectively undermine the realities of the massive body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence of AGW. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> 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. > > >
