|
No global warming since 1995
Submitted by Staff on Wed, 2010-03-03 13:14.
"Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. "Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying." * Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing "[Professor Phil Jones] also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend." |
UPC Exchange has just entered its Crowd Funding stage. Come visit the next best thing since craigslist! The Universal Product Code Exchange (UPC Exchange) website allows people in a local peer-to-peer environment to buy and sell any item with an universal product code label (UPC). In a nutshell: UPCX gives the price advantage of the individual to individual exchange of Craigslist, the ease, structure, and data completeness of Amazon.com, and the convenience of matching buyer with seller of eBay. This will create a much greater chance for a buyer to find a seller and give the seller a significantly higher amount pocketed for their items sold. We like to think of it as, "Craigslist meets eBay meets Amazon.com meets Half Priced Books meets any Brick-and-Mortar re-sale store in the individual's local community." Recent commentsGood Reads |
Sloppyness or dishonesty.
What Phil Jones meant, which would have been obvious if you didn't go with pre-digested quotes from someone who has an axe to grind, was that 15 years is slightly below the threshold of statistical significance.
It has indeed warmed significantly since 1995; but what does that warming mean if you're constrained to looking at only the 1995-2010 period? Nothing.
It's always possible to fit a linear regression to some short-term noise, but it's meaningless: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1989/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1973/to:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:1987/trend
(Very long link, hopefully it will parse correctly).
Axe to grind?
If Phil would bother to be a real scientist and release the raw data, then there would be no debate one way or another.
As it is, the raw data isn't available for peer review, and as such, any declarations by Phil, or anyone else, is irrelevant, futile, and a waste of time.
Phil (et. all) have to release the raw data and until they do, there is no scientific objective method to determine if their conclusions are worth anything.
And, if you're going to throw out a term like "sloppiness" at least bother to apply them to the group that has been sloppy. Also given the revelations still being gleamed from the stolen emails, the probability that Phil (et. all) are also dishonest is climbing, so again, please bother to apply insults where due.
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom