Qanda states : – 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 ...
Qanda reiterates what we have known all along, namely, that warmists ACCEPT that AGW is real. The real problem with this is that the warmists cannot provide any irrefutable evidence to support their acceptance.
If they had nothing to hide, why did Phil Jones and his CRU colleagues refuse to respond to freedom of information requests and make the information public? Why were the CRU and other associated warmist contributors to the IPCC so concerned about the fact that the predicted post 1998 global warming was not happening?

qanda - full of alarmist hysteria and more shrill than usual "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."

It doesn't matter what you call skeptics, whether your current ploy of trying to pigeonhole them into different "sub species", pseudo-skeptics, real-skeptics, cynics, deniers and then attack the characteristics of each straw man thus set up, it's beside the point.

The point everyone makes, there is no proof that CO2 drives temperature, and saying it is not needed, does not make it so. There is no proof that paying a big new tax will help at all reduce CO2.

An alarmist with vested interests in keeping the alarm and doomsaying going, is hardly going to be credible.

Keeping the money pouring into renewables and the pockets of scientists researching, "the effects of climate change", is clearly the common motive of many so called scientists. Scientists who then blither and blather at anyone who threatens their goose that lays golden eggs.

You try to predict the future, as weather forecasters do and don't understand you are now suffering the same ridicule they do. Which I suspect is why you all bristle so much when weather is mentioned in the same sentence as climate.

I fully understand your anger, you've made poor decisions and want others to pay for them and your career choice and feel threatened by the questioning and skepticism.

You feel very strongly about this, don't you?

2 of 2

So typically, ‘pseudo-sceptics’ will re-badge and repeat their favourite dogma time after time. They proffer nothing new, and demonstrate time after time, that they really don't understand what has been shown or explained to them, that dispels their misguided beliefs. As we see here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10243#168034

And here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169940

And here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169965

They just keep re-badging and repeating the same old guff, they have no semblance of understanding anything in response - so ignore it.

Yep, pseudo-sceptics (including rpg) want absolute 100% proof, but continuously fail to understand that science can never give 100% absolute proof.

Of course no real scientist wants AGW to be as significant as it is, so if we are in a position to test the hypothesis rigorously we do. Guess what? AGW is becoming more robust every time. I really hope some other scientist out there can genuinely put a nail in the coffin of AGW, but to date, they haven’t. They should keep trying though, regardless that some pseudo-sceptics think research funds should be with-held from ‘climate science’ – astounding rationale showing just how vacuous these pseudo-sceptics are.

Yes, the Raycoms and rpg's of this world just don’t want to accept what they just don’t understand. They‘re blind and deaf to what is presented to them and, stuck in a mud of their own making, they keep shouting from their pulpits about their own brand of ‘truth’, to whomever will stop by and listen.

As we've seen, the pseudo-sceptics will tip scorn and shite on anyone (Professor Phil Jones included) who conflicts with their own brand of ‘expert’ opinion, notwithstanding their own brand of ‘expert’ opinion is gleaned from the sanctity of their own arm-chair, and over the time it takes to google their favourite shock jock columnist, or their book-marked ‘denialist’ blog-site.

Note to Andrew Glickson, who normally replies to comments on his articles?

I take your point, but do you really expect to ‘win’ people over by scaring the crap out of them? You do know something about the Earth System; you know bugger all about shaping human behaviour.

Bugsy/qanda, when you two have quite finished with the “froth and bubble”, can we get back to the debate?

This debate is not about what I said; it’s about what Phil Jones said. OLO’ers may be wondering why your reflective angst and abuse is focused upon the messenger? You are not as you stated, refuting and rebutting “pseudo-skeptic” claims; it is Prof. Jones you have to challenge.

I made the statement that Phil Jones effectively pulled the plug on AGW, because he cannot substantiate any CRU warming trends.

When Phil Jones acknowledges that the warming trends the CRU produced cannot be repeated independently, AGW died. I evidenced this by pointing specifically to his testimony under oath which you can read for yourself.

I have also pointed to a long list of other expert testimony, from the very same hearings that support this position.

The raw data is either “lost”, or not “otherwise available” because of agreements with the supplier countries (FOI?). Where raw data is available the SOA’s (schedule of adjustments) are missing, as is the case with the NZ data from NIWA.

The only complete sets of data remaining are derivative, worthless, unless of course you know differently. So when you plead << please ... ask questions, seek answers. >>, I think we just have.

The AGW phenomena have been Europe-centric from the start, opportunistically exploited by Euro-Politics for power and money. The concentric ripples are now fading back to their origins, Europe.

Just like the “Stockholm Syndrome” afflicts those held physically hostage, “Brussels Syndrome” afflicts those held ideologically hostage. It is unhealthy to make a sudden transition. This why those who have obsessed over AGW, politicians, media, intelligencia, academia and the warmers worldwide, must keep the “dream alive” long enough for a graceful (non- embarrassing) exit strategy.

There may be a future initiative to collect good temperature data, to process it independently and to publish conclusions. This would be an excellent result from Mexico in December. In the meantime no politician will legislate on this “false premise”.

Actually spindoc, this 'debate' we are now havingis as much about the misinterpretation and misprepresentations in what you think Phil Jones said, as about what he actually said.

Tests for "statisical signifacance" aren't tests for existence. They're tests of likelihood what's observed being due to chance or not (ie a 'false positive').
The 95% cut-off (ie P<0.05) is a standard cut-off across most sciences for 'statistical significance' and ususally means we can be 95% certain that the trend is not a random effect. However if (P<0.1), ie significant at the 90% level, we can still be better than 90% confident the effect is not due to randomness.

It's completely erroneous to say that not reaching 95% significance means that something (ie warming trend) doesn't exist.

Secondly, Phil Jones didn't acknowledge the warming trends the CRU produced cannot be repeated independently. In fact he made specific testimony to the opposite right from the start of his questioning, Q78-Q80.

"Q79 Ian Stewart: You believe that the data is robust and verifiable?
Professor Jones: Yes.
Q80 Ian Stewart: Can I ask you then just to explain—some of us are not scientists on this Committee—how it could be verified? Was that implicit in what you have just told us?
Professor Jones: That was implicit in what I told you because we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups."

Independently verified trends. That someone cannot reproduce exactly what they did in one specific instance does not mean that they didn't do it correctly nor does it mean that it doesn't exist, and certainly doesn't signal the "death" of AGW, no matter how much you want to believe that.
Oh, and Jones said that the raw data is still available from the meteorological stations that provided them in the first place.

Again, Phil Jones did not say what you think he did. Get over it.

bugsy .. "Independently verified trends. That someone cannot reproduce exactly what they did in one specific instance does not mean that they didn't do it correctly" Yes it means exactly that, it means if you cannot reproduce it, it's junk.

Being able to reproduce results is science, if you can not produce it not science.

"nor does it mean that it doesn't exist" yes it does, that's exactly what it means, regardless of what mates he had review it! No wonder reasonable people have all but lost total interest in alarmist blather speak.

If results cannot be reproduced, it's garbage .. end of story no matter how much you want it to be real, or proof or whatever .. that's a fundamental of science, that you can repeat a process and get the same result.

that's the problem with all Jones data, it's made up, it's "adjusted" out of all significance. i.e. garbage.

The raw data is not what Jones used, he used the raw data as the fundamental building block and "processed it", that's what he put up - not the raw data.

The FOIs were to find out what he did and how did he get that dataset that he ended up with and was used by the IPCC.

Do you get it yet? That's why sites like WUWT are getting attention, they relate to the source of the original data, as much as qanda disdains raw data and how it is collected, it is fundamental and if you ignore that, you have crap.

I think you do get it but just can't face it .. it's what everyone who is horrified by what they did is on about and I can't believe you are too stupid to see that. You can't just argue it away as Jones did by saying, "well make up your own dataset, mine is private"

That's what the problem is, he made it up, using "scientific methods" of course, yes, of course .. nudge nudge wink wink. Ah ah ahker bullshytte!