Comments on: What significance does the dubios email correspondence of Prof. Phil Jones have on the climate debate?

By: johnny-don't drive a gas hog

johnny-don't drive a gas hog — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:55:59 +0000

The national academy of sciences says the "shinney curve" is correct, therefore you have no argument.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html
References :

By: virtualguy92107

virtualguy92107 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:33:59 +0000

You provide an excellent example with your follow-on to the question. There is nothing in the stolen e-mails that shows the "hockey stick" data to be wrong, and that particular dataset is independent of hundreds of other lines of inquiry showing global warming to be a real problem, to say nothing of the irrefutable physics behind the phenomena producing the datasets.

None the less, the stolen e-mails, by logic akin to "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" have provided fuel to keep the massive denier propaganda effort alive and well.
References :

By: Eric c

Eric c — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:47:59 +0000

The significance is that it confirms what skeptics have been saying all along. There is a concerted effort to stifle the debate. Pegminer said that the evidence is huge. How do you know that? If these scientists also acted as peer reviewers and did not allow rebuttals to important papers, that means you are only getting one side of the story.
References :

By: Richie

Richie — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:57:59 +0000

It is of the utmost significance when the leader Prof. Phil Jones says, "that there has been no statically significant global warming in the last 15 years" All the time whilst they were telling us we had to act now due to dangerous man made global warming that was going to destroy the world!

How Dana and the other activists can dismiss this fact really tells you a lot about their integrity!
References :

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:11:59 +0000

First off, what is "the shinney curve "?
"Hockey stick graph"?
Doesn’t matter anyway, here’s why>>>>>>>>>

The two head gurus of climate change, Mann and the other British geezer have stated that man made emissions are NOT responsible for any Global Warming, repeat NOT!
Now then, if you believed this pair when they said it was man causing the problem, why don’t you believe them when they say no it’s not man causing the problem.
Remember how all the polar bears were going to die? Turns out the population of polar bears has gone UP 5 fold since records began in the 1950s, so we don’t hear that BS any more.
Remember the polar icecaps were going to melt and drown us all? When it was pointed out this was a fallacy it was dropped.
Remember when we were being told there was an ice age on the way, well where is it then?
Shall I start a society called “Believe the Climate-gate two"? As said, you believed them once, believe them now, won’t you.
It’s all bollox. If the world is heating up, and the jury is still out on that one, think of all the land which will be freed up for agriculture, northern Canada, Siberia etc, Global Warming if it happens can be a force for good.
Anyway the climate-gate scandal people have stated that man has no effect on the climate, so please stop worrying about something we can’t do anything to change.
It’s all bollox, Mann and Jones have said so, they were believed when they said it was man making it warmer, now they have said it’s not man made, why not believe them?
References :

By: pegminer

pegminer — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:58:59 +0000

The significance is that deniers can take the correspondence out of context and intentionally misinterpret it to try and confuse the public about the evidence for global warming, which is huge. As for the scientific significance, there is virtually none. Even if you ignore that data the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.

EDIT: Don’t be intentionally stupid Eric, the emails are not going to change the laws of radiative transfer, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that the models predict warming, or that temperatures have been rising, or that changes in phenology are seen around the world, or that glaciers have been retreating, and that there’s less arctic ice, etc. Also, under peer review you wouldn’t have people whose work is proxy reconstruction reviewing papers of people whose work is satellite temperatures, or model output, etc. People review work in fields similar to their own–that’s the point, they’re peers. The evidence for warming comes from so many different fields that the scope of papers that Jones, Mann, etc. would review would not begin to cover it.
References :

By: Dana1981

Dana1981 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:46:59 +0000

None. The stolen emails simply reveal that Jones was frustrated with people constantly harassing him with Freedom of Information Act requests for data which was publicly available. The emails don’t reveal any data manipulation or falsification. They don’t change the scientific evidence for man-made global warming in any way.
References :
http://www.physorg.com/news179857607.html

By: bravozulu

bravozulu — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:02:59 +0000

The emails indicate that they weren’t being honest about the data. They were acting as political activists. Mann started the business of revising the climate record by cherry picking data and flat out fraud as was demonstrated by his adding adjusted modern thermometer record to his tree ring data because the two didn’t match. It also demonstrated how the smoothed the data. Much of the emails were instructive in that they showed how they were not able to find evidence for their agenda. They acted in an unscientific manner by stacking the deck so that only a small closed group of people were allowed to do peer review and the attacked people and publications that didn’t buy what they knew was contrived data. It showed them acting as leftist activists and not scientists. They even managed to discredit the raw data they used. There is zero integrity in Mann. That guy lies when the truth makes a better story. Jones seems to believe in his fairytale but judges other peoples worth by how left wing they are. He is clearly not acting as a scientists but as someone pushing an agenda.

It doesn’t really change the state of the evidence. It was completely obvious that Mann lied and invented the Hockey stick for political reasons. Now with those lies illustrated by their own words, it is obvious to anyone, not just people who had some knowledge of climate history.
References :

By: stl_luna_7

stl_luna_7 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:17:59 +0000

Perhaps he was fudging enough to give himself an out.
References :

By: Dr Jello - AGW RIP 1980-2010

Dr Jello - AGW RIP 1980-2010 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:44:59 +0000

I think his most profound statement is "that there has been no statically significant global warming in the last 15 years"

Statically significant is a very low standard. Science won’t even fund a project unless it meets this threshold.

Basically, he just admitted that this so-called "Global Warming" thing is all a hoax.
References :