In a report today out of the UK, Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the world’s climate data collection organization, says there has been no global warming since 1995.
Jones, formerly the head of the UK’s East Anglia Climate Unit, stepped down from his position recently, as an investigation into ClimateGate goes forward, but Jones did a Q and A with the BBC, and it is astonishing:
He is directly asked if there has been statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to present, and from January 2002 to present. His answer was no.
He is asked if he agrees that “natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming” from 1975-1998, which the ClimateGate bullies (Jones’ cohorts in Climate Change) said was happening due to man-made causes.
Unbelievably, he says “this area is slightly outside my area of expertise,” but goes on to talk about influences from volcanoes and the Sun: two volcanoes – one in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, and he states that sun activity is essentially flat over this period. So no, he does not believe natural influences warmed anything. Later in the questioning, he says he firmly believes that man causes warming (the warming that has not happened).
About the “hockey stick graph,” well those records are missing, and you know, he cops to having egregious organizational skills. In the Q and A below, the words “hockey stick” are not mentioned, but the famous “hide the decline” is, and that is all a misunderstanding after his emails were taken out of context.
Here is a snyopsis of the BBC exchange:
How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
When asked about the ClimateGate emails, he insists they were taken out of context. When asked why he asked a colleague to delete emails about an IPCC assessment report, he says the email was sent out of “frustration.”
When asked how much faith he has in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia, he said he believes the data is sound, but noted his colleague Keith Briffa has said he thinks something is “amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data.”
I’ve read through Briffa’s “validity of the published Yamal tree-ring chronology” and I don’t find him indicating that something might be amiss, but then, I’m not a scientist. However, he does admit that omitting some of the trees he used, and adding some trees that Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit suggested to replace his trees, would be done today under their “current practice.”
In other words, they have changed their methods (maybe because something was amiss), and today, McIntyre’s trees would be used, and no warming would be indicated. I believe the bottomline of the Yamal tree ring, for someone miles below the novice level, is McIntyre may have believed Briffa used trees from an area where trees were increasing in quantity (indicating warming) but did not use trees from areas in Russia where there was no increase.
When asked if he agrees that “the debate on climate change is over,” he said no.
When asked about intimation in the emails that he was trying to subvert the process of peer review, in an effort to influence editors, he said: “I do not accept that.”
When asked where he draws the line on the handling of data, and does he accept that he crossed the line, he said that is a matter for independent review.
When asked if he expects to return to the position of director of the Climate Research Unit, he said “the question is not for me to answer.”
He also said his life, since the emails were leaked, had been awful.
Related and Background:
Ocean Rise: Sea Level Rise Never Began: Scientists Withdraw Claims of Sea Levels Rising