Thanks qanda, that’s the BBC one I wanted you to produce. Now we can answer Bugsy’s question which was, what did Phil Jones actually say in relation to; is there global warming and is it caused by carbon?

Q. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A. Yes, but only just.

Even with the qualifier “statistically-significant” the answer is still “no global warming since 1995”. The global trend 1860 to 2009 is, according to Phil Jones, 0.16 degrees C per decade. Even if the CRU’s arrival at this figure were uncontested, which it isn’t, their own margin of error is 0.15 which leaves little to discuss.

Q. How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

A. 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.

Er, hang on a minute Professor Jones. Even if we accept your 100% certainty, didn’t you miss out the words “statistically-significant” this time around? Yes we can see the on your figures there is 0.01 degree C per decade to account for outside your margin of error, but how “statistically-significant” is that, if at all?

Did you say you agree with the IPCC Chapter 9 that “there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity”. But hang on, we were told the IPCC don’t do research, so where did they get that “evidence” from? Oh yes, I forgot, the CRU of course.

If the “warming” since 1950 is man made, why does no warming outside margin of error show up on the trends you have just given us for that period? If there isn’t any warming, how can it be man made?

qanda, In the table from Phil Jones BBC interview there are two errors, one contradicts his testimony at the hearing, can you spot them

This is a joke right?

Where's the statements contradictory to warming? Where's the statements "effectively pulling the plug?" on AGW? Where's the question on residual carbon? Where's the 'specific question', "is the globe warming?" and the apparently contradictory answer?

Memoranda written by other people are not in issue here. What is in issue, is that you think that Phil Jones' statements were apparently contradictory to the idea that the earth is experiencing AGW. And that you think it a "fact that his views are now contrary to [mine]". Again I ask, where is that evidence? What exactly are these views of his that are so contrary to mine?

It appears you are working from a different transcript from us. Please provide this apparently different transcript.

Oh, the BBC transcipt, not the one 'under oath and legal advice before the UK Parliamentary Inquiry' at all, no wonder I couldn't find it, it was the one I thought you were talking about in the first place. The confusion between 'significant' and 'statistically significant' and what a 'margin of error' is.

These might help:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=statistics+for+dummies&x=0&y=0

They are quite good as a resource, and are far more educational than Plimers book.

As I thought.

Despite ALL the evidence, the findings and conclusions of the parliamentary inquiry is a 'conspiracy'. OLO's very own spindoctor is right, and they have got it all wrong. WOW, hoodagestit!

Nowhere does our spinner argue with any cognisance, at all, that >> Phil Jones has effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. <<

Spindoc also says;

>> Like I said, his (Phil Jones) views now contradict the “warmers” ... <<

Complete and utter nonsense.

You’re right bugsy, Phil Jones didn't say what spinner thought he said – but he won’t get over it.

Don’t be surprised if you can’t find the question to Phil Jones about "residual atmospheric carbon" – the spindoctor was not lying ... he was making it up, so don't expect him to find it either.

_______

spindoc >> qanda, In the table from Phil Jones BBC interview there are two errors, one contradicts his testimony at the hearing, can you spot them <<

You really don’t have to prove you are a clueless twit, spindoc – I already know. For the onlookers though, be my guest ... go ahead.

Btw spindoc;

>> Thanks qanda, that’s the BBC one I wanted you to produce. <<

Another um, er ... not lie spinner, but a typical case of whatyacallit urself, amnesia!

You did not want me to produce that at all. I was flying in the wind because you wouldn't/couldn't produce the transcript you yourself were referring to. You were asking bugsy this:

>> Perhaps you could post the transcript of the UK Parliamentary Hearing, then we can disscuss what Phil Jones actually "said". That way we don't need to discuss what "I think he said". <<

1 of 2

I apologise to all onlookers for giving the impression that I’m an arrogant old fart who is totally condescending of those (like spindoc) that question the veracity of the current knowledge of ‘climate science’. Alas, it’s true. I have nothing but contempt and complete disdain for these so called ‘sceptics’ – resolute in denying what the vast majority of scientists, including those listed here;

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

are telling them.

Sure, we don’t know everything – but we do know a heluvalot more than the 'spindocs' of the world. To the real cynics (not sceptics), please ... ask questions, seek answers. At the end of the day, if you are still unsure about the science, perhaps you should be enrolling in an undergraduate course (at least) or be doing post-grad work in real ‘climate science’, whatever that may be. Who knows, maybe one day you too could be contributing to the stuff that pseudo-sceptics (like spindoc) can really ever, only, dream about.

It’s tiring and it’s tedious – and sometimes we lose our patience, we are only human. Yet, no matter how many times we rebut, rebuff and refute the ‘pseudo-sceptic’ claims, in no matter how many cogent ways, responses and replies – the ‘pseudo-sceptics’ still do not want to accept what the overwhelming numbers in the scientific community, the real sceptics, themselves accept. That is; AGW is real, it is significant, and that it’s about time the politicians got their act together, to show real leadership, and to do something substantive about it.

Cont’d in the morning