« How do you define anti-semitism? | Main | More Reason to Submit to Rule by the "Educated Class" [UPDATED] »

Climate scientist Phil Jones: No global warming since 1995

The scientist at the center of the climategate scandal made a rather important admission during an interview with the BBC.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

The author of the MailOnline article about the interview, Jonathan Petre calls this news a "Climategate U-turn". One might go so far as to call it a pivot.

Instapundit has a roundup of reactions to the interview, including comments by Ann Althouse that echo sentiments that I've blogged for quite a whle now:

Everyone should perceive flaws! To talk about "sceptics" as the ones who will "seize" upon "evidence" of flaws is unwittingly to make global warming into a matter of religion and not science. It's not the skeptics who look bad. "Seize" sounds willful, but science should motivate us to grab at evidence. It's the nonskeptics who look bad. It's not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It's not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn't adhere to the methods of science.
Science is not religion. It can't be settled after a few years of research just because of political pressure. People who offer alternative theories aren't skeptics--their scientists. And (this is the important) all theories put forth to the community have to be provable or disprovable. Attributing a priori every observable to "climate change" fails this test just as much as claiming "the god of thunder Thor is mad at us" as the reason. If you can't prove it and others can't independently prove it but believe it anyway that's a matter of faith, not science.

To head off the comments below, no, the above does not mean that the science is "settled" and there is no such thing as global warming. What I hope comes from these continued revelations and scandals is an agreement to investigating the phenomenon scientifically. One should get funding to research the extent and mechanisms by which our climate is changing. There should be no bias of funding to people who are out to prove "global warming is real". Such biases pollutes the scientific process.

Of course, people giving up something they believe with a religious zeal is probably too much for me to hope for.

Update: Some more thoughts on the Jones interview at Powerline and Pajamas Media. Both of these articles look at what was said in more depth. For those looking for black and white answers (Global warming was a complete lie! No, global warming is 100% true and going to kill us all if we don't act NOW!) I'm sorry that science is rarely so clear on a subject.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (33)

For the life of me I can't ... (Below threshold)

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone cares what Althouse, McArdle or andi sullivan think about anything.

GLOBAL WARMINGS a big fat l... (Below threshold)

GLOBAL WARMINGS a big fat lie someone should sue the ENVIROMENTAL DEFENSE FUND for their fruadulent ads on GLOBAL WARMING

I don't think all those who... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I don't think all those who have accepted Al Gore's "the science is settled" assertion are environmental zealots, although some are. I do think that many in the scientific community who actively push human caused global warming (AGW) do so for political reasons. A much larger group of scientists who acquiesce to AGW do so for career reasons. The same is likely true for most politicians. Then there are a few scientists who's research counters the AGW argument and they have to give lip service to AGW to get funding and to get published.

The tide is turning, however, and I predict the resurgence of real science. For those who have forgotten, real science is transparent and open. No study based on unavailable or missing raw data or proprietary metadata meets that criteria. Any journal that publishes studies without such transparency is going to take a big hit in its prestige. Only on the basis of real science will the public support economically damaging restrictions on energy production.

Sad part is the MSM and man... (Below threshold)

Sad part is the MSM and many others will maintain that Global warming has occurred in the last ten years. They will continue to repeat some of the disproven studies with little regard for the truth.For example the Polar bear population is booming yet they repeat the opposite.

Since 1995? How about the ... (Below threshold)

Since 1995? How about the beginning of creation?

Humans' firm belief that they could actually influence the climate in this manner is silly and arrogant at the same time. The earth has survived hundreds of millions of year with creatures like dinosaurs, etc. "destroying" the planet.

As always people like to overestimate their importance.

NASA data: 2009: Second War... (Below threshold)

NASA data: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

NASA's website -


What's interesting about th... (Below threshold)

What's interesting about this is that the reporting is being done by major foreign
newspapers. The articles is from a British newspaper. The ultra-liberal Guardian (UK) and Australian newspapers have also made major contributions to the investigation. Looking at Google news today - the first 200 articles or so, I can't find any american news agencies (except blogs) who have even reported the story. In fact, US newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post are still offering opinion pieces about the "assault on science".

This comment by NPR [!] today is an incredibly damning commentary on the American mainstream media (MSM):

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their gaze, though the British press - even the left-wing Guardian and the Independent - is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved vengeance.)

URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123601479

If you get your news from the Amaerican mainstream media, you are not well-informed. You have been duped and manipulated.

I agree with #3 above excep... (Below threshold)

I agree with #3 above except:

"Only on the basis of real science will the public support economically damaging restrictions on energy production."

Why is it taken as "fact" that changing our energy infrastructure to mitigate GW is "economically damaging"? Alternate/green energy production is highly profitable. I guess unless you're an oil or coal man.

#6: "Humans' firm belief that they could actually influence the climate in this manner is silly and arrogant"

Except we can and do measure our impact on the planet all the time - e.g. leaded gasoline, nuclear waste, DDT, the Pacific garbage patch, etc, etc, etc. What are you talking about? You are right about one thing, the planet doesn't care; it will go on with or without us. So we don't really want to save the earth, we want to save ourselves. Let's be honest and quit speaking in euphemisms.

#7: EXACTLY! Read what the science has to say! It is getting warmer, and we are making it happen. There is a HUGE difference between skeptics and deniers. Science thrives in the presence of skepticism, denialism is an industry born of the potential threats to the profits of the fossil fuel interests and has nothing to do with science...

Pssst moggadon: ... (Below threshold)

Pssst moggadon:

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

Why is it taken as... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Why is it taken as "fact" that changing our energy infrastructure to mitigate GW is "economically damaging"? Alternate/green energy production is highly profitable. I guess unless you're an oil or coal man.

If that were true, and it's not, there would be no need for cap and trade. The free market would quickly move to that "highly profitable" energy without government mandates to make the current technology more expensive.

#7: EXACTLY! Read what the science has to say! It is getting warmer, and we are making it happen.

NASA's data is the product of Dr. James E. Hansen, and he has been caught several times cooking the books by Steve McIntyre, such that Hansen has had to acknowledge the "mistake" and correct the data. That is, when skeptics like McIntyre are able to penetrate the veil of secrecy surrounding the raw data and metadata Hansen uses. Any institution that's not 100% transparent and open about its findings and methods can be dismissed as just more junk science. Being that NASA is taxpayer funded, there's no excuse for not being 100% transparent and open.

The raw data NASA uses comes from the USHCN network, but physical surveys of 82% of these stations show a strong warming bias due to non compliance such as being located next to a parking lot, or having heat producing equipment in close proximity. Researchers like Hansen claim they correct for such errors, but until volunteers went out and surveyed the network, they had no means of knowing just how much warming bias was being introduced into the raw data. In other words, Hansen is wrong, and thus, NASA's temperature data is wrong.

Yes, the United States makes up only a small area of the Earth, but the USHCN network is by far the best maintained. If the USHCN stations have been encroached upon by heat producing structures and equipment, stations around the world likely have even a greater warming bias.

Climate scientists tried to counter that argument with a study done in China, but as we found out from Climategate, that study was questioned even by the insiders, and once again, the raw data disappeared or never really existed.

Moggadon, I think you'll find you are on the wrong side if history by defending or even accepting junk science.

NASA data: 2009: S... (Below threshold)
NASA data: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

NASA . . . NASA . . . Is that the same NASA that's been caught manipulating temperature data?


In support of Mac Lorry's p... (Below threshold)

In support of Mac Lorry's point that the temperature "data" is unreliable:


LMBO!!!... (Below threshold)


Details of temperature data... (Below threshold)

Details of temperature data manipulation:


2009 was NOT the warmest y... (Below threshold)
Peter Lawless:

2009 was NOT the warmest year this century!NASA has already been forced to redo it's data on this subject by one, Steve McIntyre.The warmest year, according to NASA's latest,rectified figures,was 1934;followed by 1998!

I hereby accuse C. Montgome... (Below threshold)

I hereby accuse C. Montgomery Burns with deliberately, and with malice aforethought, placing a ginormous invisible magnifying glass in the ionosphere centered over the greater Vancouver-Whistler area of British Colombia for the express purpose of embarrassing Anti-Global Warming partisans by fucking up the XX1 Winter Olympic Games.

Requesting Jay Tea notarize and undersign.

I hereby accuse... (Below threshold)
I hereby accuse C. Montgomery Burns with deliberately, and with malice aforethought, placing a ginormous invisible magnifying glass in the ionosphere
He didn't do it, and it's not a magnifying glass.

HWC invented a means to manipulate the earth's magnetic field so that incoming solar radiation could be concentrated in a particular location.

Unfortunately, the amount of solar radiation we can manipulate is limited to the amount already reaching the earth's surface, which is why the rest of the country is freezing its rocks off.

Sorry about that.

I've never even been to Van... (Below threshold)
Victory is Mao's:

I've never even been to Vancouver and now it's been destroyed by lack of snow. Com.plete.ly.des.troyed.

Sigh. What a world, what a world.

No snow and too much snow are both signs of global warming. When are you people going to wake up. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!


Iwogisdead,Thanks ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Thanks for the link. I watched all five segments, but learned the most new information from segment four. Yes, it's a one sided presentation, but then so is Al Gore's movie, a movie liberal educators have shown to millions of public school children since its release. For balance, they should now be shown John Coleman's "Global Warming: The Other Side".

I have always been an athei... (Below threshold)

I have always been an atheist but now I am also an aGoreist (pronounced a-gor-ee-ist). It means I don't believe in the religion of Global Warming

Wow!Steve Green is... (Below threshold)


Steve Green is now posting under "anon"!

How gutless can he get?

Stick around. Me thinks Steve will continue to impress with his ability to "keep digging".

NASA data!!!


This is the same NASA which "accidently" used Sept data for October and got about a billion headlines written proclaiming the horrible global warming consequences to come.

These guys can't stop lying.

And by "these guys", I mean Steve Green et al.

I demand that tina s "fact ... (Below threshold)

I demand that tina s "fact check" this for us and report.

Working in the industry of ... (Below threshold)

Working in the industry of auto movers, something that is sometimes brought up is as to the pollution that is caused by trucks on the road. With the politics involved it is hard to know what is fact and what is truth.

For 15 years no Global warm... (Below threshold)

For 15 years no Global warming huh? well for at least 12 of those years they lied and said it was still warming each year .. when they were caught a few years ago with facts.. they began slowly backtracking.. now they are back to 15 years no warming caused by man.. one day very soon I hope this fraud will be over.. When that happens science should start a new field of study.. what happens when you mix politics.. communism.. and greed with science.. I suggest it be named the Greenpeace/Gore/Jones hipocrisy

Follow the money.... (Below threshold)

Follow the money.

Good thing I got my carbon ... (Below threshold)

Good thing I got my carbon offsets for FREE:



What's all this? We have b... (Below threshold)

What's all this? We have been hearing about this matter from previous 6 years the most. We are told "GLOBAL WARMING....GLOBAL WARMING...GLOBAL WARMING..is the greatest tragedy from all around and now we are being told by Mr.Phil Jones that it doesn't exist from the previous years. Would anyone tell me if that is true, than where were the scientist in 90's???

In his post, #3, Mac Lorry ... (Below threshold)

In his post, #3, Mac Lorry says he doesn't feel everyone who has accepted Al Gore's, "the science is settled," assertion is an environmental zealot.

And he is dead right.

Only about a third of those who have accepted Al Gore's, "the science is settled," assertion are environmental zealots.

The other two thirds are fellow travelers and useful idiots.

even when we find a solutio... (Below threshold)

even when we find a solution for global warming (if it exists) a study will come out and tell us that it gives us cancer.

Greetings from unseasonably... (Below threshold)

Greetings from unseasonably warm and wonderful Palm Springs, California!!, where we're currently feasting upon winter temperatures in the 80's, low relative humidity, poolside margaritas, hot, scantily clad Meskin' honeys and palm tree siestas!! Ya know, even if this whole climate change thing is a great big fat hoax, who couldn't use a little warming?

Oops, gotta go, Senior Gore has just ordered another poolside "Long Island Iced Carbon Footprint Tea". Hasta Luego muchachas!!!

What ever became of the GLO... (Below threshold)

What ever became of the GLOBAL COOLING and the NEW ICE AGE were suppost to be getting back in the 1970s and all the false predictions of PAUL EHRLICH

Let's see what Jones actual... (Below threshold)

Let's see what Jones actually said, not what the misleading headlines say:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"

Phil Jones:
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

Per the above, he says there is warming and that warming trend is quite close to the 95% significance level. Too much noise in short time spans as well.

Also, ever find a mistake in a textbook you used in school? It happens all the time and we didn't throw out the whole textbook due to it having a few errors. Same with the IPCC report.

The world is warming!!! Tak... (Below threshold)

The world is warming!!! Take two glasses of water. Put 2 ice cubes in one of the glasses and none in the other. Then leave the two glasses out in the hot sun for 30mins. One gets hot and the other stays cool. Simple right??? Then why do people not understand that the world is warming?? And sure it has only warmed up 1.4 degrees so far in the last hundred years but that is only because of the two giant ice cubes cooling the ocean which in turn cools the world. Those ice cubes are going fast!!!We are in serious trouble here people. Without those ice cubes we will be history.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy