Trakar
VIP Member
- Feb 28, 2011
- 1,699
- 74
- 83
- Thread starter
- #41
I'm just as familiar with Dr Jones as I am with the Daily Fail's distortions and lies.
If you are willing to accept Dr. Jones' opinion on this issue, I'm perfectly willing to consider them as well, so long as we look at the words he actually said in the context of how he said them and how he clarified and expanded upon them when questioned about them.
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
(though the whole interview is important for context - the specific question and initial response was
Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Answer: 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.
Though I don't do blogs, and generally eschew youtube presentations for similar reasons, here is a youtube explanation that is (from my perspective) surprizingly cogent and well put.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag]8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube[/ame]
From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (CI). 95% CI - is simply a commonly-used interval in scientific research (statistically identifying data that falls within two standard deviations of the mean), it is not any sort of cut and dried or intrinsic determinant. Anecdotally, the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.
Trusting Phil Jones on experiments would be like hiring Bernie Madoff or Jon Corzine as financial Controller; he's a fake who has altered and destroyed data
I posted that just to show you how your Jesus is saying "AGW...meh...I'm not so sure"
Excepting, of course, two very important points 1) He is no one's "Jesus" that I am aware of, and 2) that isn't what the man said.
(oh, btw, if you are going to use that poor dead man's picture as your political statement d'jour, how about at least using a picture that is sympathetic to his memories like the one below instead of the one you have where he looks like he just stumbled out of some opium den after a week-long bender!)