Climategate U-Turn! Guess what, folks?

[SpidermanTuba]

Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary?

I would actually love to read a scientific paper that has contrary statements. PLease, by all means, give me one.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

When the IPCC, CRU, UCAR, NCAR, Penn State, NASA, NOAA, et.al. are ready to release scientifically valid "work", let me know.

All those groups have numerous peer reviewed publications in numerous different journals.


You really are just plain dumb, aren't you?

You're really going to stick by that dead letter argument, huh?

Kevin and I will keep them (skeptical research papers) out (of the IPCC) somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

~Phil Jones, CRU

Please, continue to demonstrate you are retarded, it gets funnier each time.

 

[Oddball]

Only quoting one of your "peer reviewed" avatars.

BTW...Galileo was rat fucked by the same kind of establishment insider "peer review".

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No? I didn't think so.

 

[Oddball]

Holocaust deniers use your brand of circle jerk "peer review".

If that's not evidence enough what would be?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Goodbye

 

[Old Rocks]

Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary? Lots of links...

Pajamas Media Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here

Probably because Jones made no such admission!

I love how when CON$ distort and pervert the news, they then cry foul when honest news sources don't distort and pervert the news also.

Jones didn't say there was not sufficient WARMING in the period from 1995 to 2009, Jones actually said there was a positive .12 deg warming for that period that was "quite close to the significance level" but the PERIOD OF TIME was not LONG ENOUGH!!!

And Jones said the uncertainty regarding the MWP was whether it was GLOBAL or not. He said there is not enough evidence to show it was global at this time. He also said if the MWP was found to be global but was not warmer than today globally, that would make the present warming unprecedented.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
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.



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



G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Right, how does one measure the ocean covered part of global temps for MWP? That is the question.
BTW, Jones did say all that and more. Read the interview with BBC.

Access : Palaeoclimate: The riddle of the sediments : Nature
Palaeoclimate: The riddle of the sediments
Mark Siddall1

Top of pageAbstractThe ratio of oxygen isotopes contained in the signal in deep-sea sediments can tell us a great deal about past ice-volume variations. The challenge is to disentangle the different contributions to the signal.

The ratio of ice to water on Earth has been in more-or-less constant flux on timescales of thousands to millions of years. Although we have known of these changes for several decades, quantifying them — finding whether Earth's climate has laid down a precise account of itself anywhere — continues to preoccupy palaeoceanographers, palaeoclimatologists and glaciologists alike.