Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[gslack]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

What the hell does "but only just" mean?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!

Dude you would read whatever you wanted into anything simply because it has to be warming in your mind....

Pathetic.. Do you endorse faith healing too?

 

[Oddball]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

The word after "yes" was "BUT", making everything else that followed a diversion from the fact.

Little wonder a cultist like you falls for it.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

What the hell does "but only just" mean?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!

Dude you would read whatever you wanted into anything simply because it has to be warming in your mind....

Pathetic.. Do you endorse faith healing too?

Ahhhh yes, the perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. As if you didn't know, the "only just" refers to the "statistical significance" level, not to the positive warming trend that was measured for the period. The measured period of time was just a little bit too short to reach the "statistical significance" level.
Get it?

 

[edthecynic]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

The word after "yes" was "BUT", making everything else that followed a diversion from the fact.

Little wonder a cultist like you falls for it.

And the sentence with the word "but" ends with the word "just." The period that follows the word "just" tells you that. A new sentence and therefore a new statement begins with the word "I," making everything you posted pure bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

GW's father: George, did you chop down the cherry tree?

GW: Yes, but only just.

Fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"?
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just

See, it means OJ didn't do it to a 95% statistically significant level or something Beavis

 

[RollingThunder]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

So much proof for AGW, why do they keep getting caught fudging data?

Why are warmer periods called optimums?

 

[konradv]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"?
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?

Everyone knows that! Why are you just catching up now? This just proves how hypocritical the deniers are. They say the sun isn't taken into account by "warmers", but when you do take it into account, they act as if it's news to them!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OMFG!!

15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant

That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what 'statistically significant' actually means.

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

I had no idea the Wamers read my USMB postings. I feel I've arrived.

I'd like to thank the Academy..

 

[RollingThunder]

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

Really? Where prey tell is that "evidence"? Oh, wait, don't tell m it's a computer model right?

It is sooooo typical of your retarded posts, walleyed, that you demonstrate so clearly that you didn't even bother to look at the evidence and so you have to guess (and guess wrong) what it is. You are such a clueless idiot!

Yes I thought so. Those are useless. Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent. OOOOOPPPPS!

Wrong again, cretin. The 'evidence' involves direct observation and measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels, outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere across the spectral bands, and downward radiation flux at Earth's surface.

They don't have much to do with this evidence I've cited but as far as the actual climate models go, you have your head up your azz, as usual, and are just repeating debunked denier cult myths.

Why should we trust a computer model?

Is Climate Modelling Science?

How reliable are climate models?

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

 

[Oddball]

1995:

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just.

1996:

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just...But that was a year ago, so all the evidence that came before doesn't count, so the answer is now: Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"?
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?

Everyone knows that! Why are you just catching up now? This just proves how hypocritical the deniers are. They say the sun isn't taken into account by "warmers", but when you do take it into account, they act as if it's news to them!!!

Everyone knows that? I only hear the "deniers" talk about the Sun.

What influence does water vapor have on "Climate Change"?
Or are the only two factors worth considering the Sun and man-made CO2?

 

[westwall]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

My gosh but it's amusing to hear you idiots fall all over yourselves trying to co-opt the very arguments we have put forth to counter your silly mantra that CO2 is the end all and be all of global warming.

What useless, mindless, political hacks you are.

 

[westwall]

Still bobbing and weaving as you dodge the issue. You asked how to quantify man's contribution to global warming. There are multiple warming influences, natural and man made. The natural influences operate in cycles of warming and cooling, and man made influences warm steadily.

The man made and natural influences modulate each other. When both man made and natural influences both warm they add together. When the natural influences cool they are opposed by the man made influences which are still warming and stunt the cooling. The man made influences have neutralized the cooling cycles and thus the increase in the low averages of the natural cooling cycles from cooling cycle to cooling cycle gives you an empirical quantification of man made global warming.

As the deniers have stated in this thread, we are 10 years into what should be a 30 year cooling cycle, but we are still warming, more slowly than the previous 20 years, but warming none the less. This last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. It seems the man made warming is so strong nature can no longer stop it completely 10 years into the cycle, but can only slow it down. It will be interesting to see if we are still warming in another 5 years when the natural cooling is at its max!

Please show us where the globe is still warming. BEST says that warming hasn't occured for the last 10 to 11 years.

This is a perfect example of why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after it was pointed out to you that the chart is NOT from BEST, you just continue to lie and say that it is from BEST. The chart is from the denier think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It says so right on the graph, so you knew you were lying when you said "BEST says."

I see you have a problem with reading comprehension as well. I stated that the graph showed what BEST has discovered. The data was posted by BEST on their website and someone else took THEIR data points and came up with the graph I posted.

A point for you to consider here edthefool, anyone who refers to a group of individuals as Con$ has allready lost whatever credibility they may have had. Of course you lost all crediblility long ago, but that's besides the point I'm making. My point is, if you wish to be taken seriously divorce yourself from your blatant partisanship, it doesn't serve you in the slightest.

 

[westwall]

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

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

I notice how you leave out the statistical error bands that completely cover the .12 rise, which means that if there is warming it is so small as to be unmeasurable. Nice to see you are so invested in being honest there silly person.

 

[westwall]

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - 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.

What the hell does "but only just" mean?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!

Dude you would read whatever you wanted into anything simply because it has to be warming in your mind....

Pathetic.. Do you endorse faith healing too?

Ahhhh yes, the perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. As if you didn't know, the "only just" refers to the "statistical significance" level, not to the positive warming trend that was measured for the period. The measured period of time was just a little bit too short to reach the "statistical significance" level.
Get it?

Uhhh, for the record silly person, you're being the dumb one. You don't understand simple syntax.

 

[westwall]

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

Really? Where prey tell is that "evidence"? Oh, wait, don't tell m it's a computer model right?

It is sooooo typical of your retarded posts, walleyed, that you demonstrate so clearly that you didn't even bother to look at the evidence and so you have to guess (and guess wrong) what it is. You are such a clueless idiot!

Yes I thought so. Those are useless. Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent. OOOOOPPPPS!

Wrong again, cretin. The 'evidence' involves direct observation and measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels, outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere across the spectral bands, and downward radiation flux at Earth's surface.

They don't have much to do with this evidence I've cited but as far as the actual climate models go, you have your head up your azz, as usual, and are just repeating debunked denier cult myths.

Why should we trust a computer model?

Is Climate Modelling Science?

How reliable are climate models?

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

Yes, yes, yes. Please show me a single computer model that can recreate the weather that occured one week ago. We have absolutely perfect data on the conditions that existed and they CAN'T DO IT you idiot! When a computer model can't recreate what WE KNOW OCCURED with perfect information, how on earth do you think it can predict anything!

A more perfect example of faith based belief doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. At least the religious folks get to point to the occasional miracle to reinforce their faith, but you? You've got NOTHING!