Bazz

Are you really interested in trying to advance your understanding of this vexing problem or are you just hell-bent on proliferating dis-information? I thought that by now the Jones furphy had been laid to rest, but apparently not.So for the interest of the sincere OLO-ers who have not read my post to some of the other threads, here is a re-run:

The original Jones interview is available at the BBC site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm: here is the relevant section:

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

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."

In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones: "I'm 100 percent 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."

Don't you understand that certainty decreases with reduction in sample size? With a "sample" down of 2 years, you could show either dramatic cooling or warming, depending on which two years were chosen- but the statistical significance would be close to zero.

...are you amenable to hearing the original stuff, or do you prefer to just re-broadcast these convenient lies?

Yes I read the original and it is quite equivocal.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Of course the world has been warming for the last 300 years or so.
I am happy to wait for them to start from scratch again.

Anyway we have bigger fish to fry.
We might well have the end of growth with us now and if so CO2 emissions will not be a problem as
they will decrease faster than any Copenhagen could have initiated.

http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg040310.htm

Playing word games again Jedimaster?

You at least confirm that there is no scientific basis for AGW, as does Jones.

He refers us back to the pathetic “very likely” of the IPCC, which now has no basis.

Your statement ” In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say”, is baseless.

Jones has simply played word games, and has no more idea than you do, whether the globe has warmed, or whether it matters if it has.

The point which is clear, despite you and Jones, is that there is no basis for action on human emissions. You have carefully danced around this. It is a fact which has to be faced.

By the way, I am a realist, not a denier. You have put up no science that needs denying. You have no scientific basis for your assertions on AGW. The words of Jones, fighting for his credibilty, even if they helped you, are not authoritive.

Your alarmist nonsense requires ridicule, not denial.

You are past the point where you can put up a pretence of genuinely seeking the truth. You are partisan, and on the side of the fact challenged alarmists.

Leo Lane

It looks as though Overlord Monckton has trained his Imperial Stormtroopers well. Here's the drill:

First, deny all (presented) scientific information as the work of those who would undermine the Empire. Real scientific work is performed by "scientific advisers" and "mathematicians" like Monckton, who use respected journals like The Daily Mail.

Second, deny that you're denying anything and that you are actually a "realist"- as compared with "unrealists" who tender alternative opinions. Reality is today's weather.

Third,make a fake concession: "even if there is any basis to alternative claims, the effects would be trivial" ie, invoke the "Chicken Little" claim.

Fourth, leverage the concepts of "probability" and "uncertainty": As scientists use these weak-sounding words frequently to provide an empirical basis for their statements, they can used to sow doubt, compared with meat-eating realists who only deal in "belief".

Fifth, use ridicule: Science is full of big latinised specialist words that lend themselves to mirth in the mouths of non-experts. A few mis-pronunciations can be used for starters (a la Joyce and Fielding), then used to demonstrate point 2, above, and that you're a "real bloke", who doesn't need to use big words.

Sixth, if that doesn't work, repeat the cycle.

And above all, never use any data yourself, just refer to their use of incorrect data. Using data might distract from strict adherence to the above 6 commands.

Have I missed any drill-points?

Yes Jedimaster, it doesn't really matter any more whether the warming
is natural or man made. It is all over anyway, we are wasting our time.

Jedimaster: "Have I missed any drill-points?"

Yeah, you have.

7. Constantly repeat circular, twisted, tortuous and self serving reasoning that is likely to have the same effect on a rational person as finger nails dragging down a blackboard. Once they can't stand it any more and stop replying, you can say are right all along because no one disagrees.