Phil Jones vindicated

The House of Commons report on the emails stolen from CRU has vindicated Phil Jones — he has “no case to answer”:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty–for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”–we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”

James Annan points out that it is the governments own policy of wanting ownership of intellectual property that is preventing the publication of raw data and code.

See also: William Connolley, Eli Rabbet, Joe Romm and Clive Hamilton.

A big raspberry to Fred Pearce, who won’t let go of his vendetta against Jones.

Comments

  1. #1 WotWot
    April 1, 2010

    Hysterical accusations of a cover-up in 5, 4, 3, 2…

  2. #2 Deen
    April 1, 2010

    @WotWot: heh, made a similar comment on a Dutch news site yesterday. No less than two comments later the first such accusation appeared. Sometimes I hate being right.

  3. #3 EoR
    April 1, 2010

    @WotWot: too late. Andrew Bolt’s lap dogs beat you to the punch.

  4. #4 Other Mike
    April 1, 2010

    Wrote a letter to The Australian asking if they were going to prominently cover this story – that there was no conspiracy, nothing illegal, and the data says what the data says (and wow, who ever would’ve guessed?).

    No I won’t hold my breath, because I can only do that for a few seconds, not a few months.

    And yes, let’s brace ourselves for accusations of the conspiracy to hide the conspiracy. Or is this the third tier? The conspiracy to hide the conspiracy which hides the conspiracy? It’s easy to get a bit confused when reading denialist commentary as to how many conspiracies we have running at one time.

  5. #5 Other Mike
    April 1, 2010

    I forgot to add, one big criticism I have of climate science is that all the conspiracies overlap each other. Managing so many conspiracies is overly bureaucratic, and far too much duplication of effort.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    April 1, 2010

    Hysterical accusations of a cover-up in 5, 4, 3, 2…

    Accusations like this are a win-win for denialists.

    If something – anything, no matter how trivial – is found, they trumpet it like the Second Coming has arrived.

    If nothing is found, they trumpet the conspiracy to cover it up like the Second Coming (because they *know* there must have been *something*). This is particularly effective because many of their followers don’t need much persuading when rumours of a conspiracy are afoot.

  7. #7 WotWot
    April 1, 2010

    @ 2, 3, & 6

    Yes, it so predictable*, isn’t it.

    I have no doubt it was already happening across the wider InterTubesThingy, long before I even fired up my computer this morning and read the news. Predictable, and retrodictable too.

    (* ‘Predictable’, in the special case sense of the probability being indisputably 1.)

  8. #8 JamesA
    April 1, 2010

    To a conspiracy theorist, there are two types of evidence: If it shows what they want, it proves their theory. If it doesn’t show what they want, it proves there has been a cover-up.

  9. #9 JB
    April 1, 2010

    The way people react to the House of Commons Committee’s exoneration of Jones and the CRU product pretty much tells you all you need to know.

    Insisting on holding Jones “accountable” (with his resignation?) for the nebulous “crime” of withholding information from non-scientists has nothing to do with science.

    What Fred Pearce is doing at this point is obviously meant primarily to “rehabilitate” his reputation as a science journalist, which has obviously been tarnished by his jump to “convict” Jones before all the evidence was even in.

    Pearce has been left looking like the fool with egg all over his face.

  10. #10 Boris
    April 1, 2010

    I forgot to add, one big criticism I have of climate science is that all the conspiracies overlap each other. Managing so many conspiracies is overly bureaucratic, and far too much duplication of effort.

    This is what you get with government programs. The free market is much better at creating profitable conspiracies. Ask any libertarian.

  11. #11 stopmurdoch
    April 1, 2010

    You wrote to The Australian?

    Are you insane? Why would you do that?

    Murdoch loves people who help him own the issue by interacting with his properties on his terms.

  12. #12 Marion Delgado
    April 1, 2010

    Tim:

    I’m all for herding cats and so on, but what sort of letter to Pearce/Guardian would help?

    Seriously – the only thing I could gather over at RealClimate is that the Economist was doing a better job – would that be a good thing to bring up?

    I was really angry to see what Pearce just wrote, but being furious never solves things in and of itself.

  13. #13 Bud
    April 1, 2010

    It’s pretty clear that Pearce has a personal vendetta against Jones which is clouding his judgement on everything he writes. I’m more interested in what George Monbiot’s response will be. I’ve emailed him to ask whether he’ll apologise to Phil Jones for demanding his resignation in November.

  14. #14 stopmurdoch
    April 1, 2010

    Surely Marion isn’t suggesting chucking rocks at trains?

  15. #15 Sou
    April 1, 2010

    I just skimmed the Pearce article. He is vicious. (And they say women are bitchy!) Obviously he loathes Prof Jones. I suspect as well, he wants to keep the issue alive because of his book that was mentioned on realclimate.org, if I understood Randerson correctly. If the emails mean nothing then his book is a real washout. (And I sincerely hope he gets zip from it.)

  16. #16 Marion Delgado
    April 1, 2010

    stopmurdoch:

    Indiscretions that happened before you were 5 years old should be left in the past! :)

    Seriously, I want to influence, not vent – so what do we say to Pearce that will actually work?

  17. #17 Eli Rabett
    April 1, 2010

    Well, you can look at what is happening to McLean on the Drum…..:)

  18. #18 pough
    April 1, 2010

    Well, you can look at what is happening to McLean on the Drum…..:)

    The source for First Nations and Aboriginal news?

  19. #19 Deep Climate
    April 1, 2010

    Some more here, especially on Graham Stringer.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/

    “Contrarians took comfort in maverick Labour MP Graham Stringer’s objections to some of the findings. But even here, there is little for the contrarians to cheer about, as Stringer appeared at pains to avoid any appearance of endorsing the plausibility of any of the specific accusations of dishonesty. That’s just as well, because it turns out that Stringer appears to be relying for his understanding of the issues, not on the submitted evidence, but rather – wait for it – the “quickie” book on Climategate written by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller.”

  20. #20 DavidCOG
    April 1, 2010

    Bud:

    > I’ve emailed [Monbiot] to ask whether he’ll apologise to Phil Jones for demanding his resignation in November.

    Yes. This is what I’m waiting for – he owes Jones an expansive, grovelling apology.

    Monbiot’s reaction to the Denier propaganda has been pathetic over the last few months – he appears to have capitulated.

  21. #21 MapleLeaf
    April 1, 2010

    Maybe some folks here could please go over to the BBC (Richard Black’s post) trying to make some reasonable and factually correct comments about this affair. Richard Black’s piece is OK, but he insisted on asking McIntyre’s opinion. And IMO, Black does not go far enough to highlight what an abject failure this exercise was for the denier machine.

    Thus far the deniers have been posting random thoughts and conspiracy theories at will over at BBC.

    DC @19, some of the commentators there have made the (incorrect) statement that Stinger was the only scientist on the committee. I really liked the abstract that you provided at the start of your last article. Great idea.

  22. #22 JRyan
    April 1, 2010

    If having a room full of politicians who have been promoting your agenda for the last 20 years say “Well, he didn’t do anything different than any other climate scientist” is vindication, then that’s a very, very sad win

  23. #23 pough
    April 1, 2010

    @JRyan – that’s a very interesting IF. Also in fantasyland: me and Rosario Dawson! (Which is a very, very happy win.)

  24. #24 Dave Andrews
    April 1, 2010

    A one day hearing and Jones is ‘vindicated’. Come on Tim not even you can believe that to be true.

  25. #25 WotWot
    April 1, 2010

    …1

    And here they are (22 & 24).

  26. #26 Dave
    April 1, 2010

    @Bud

    Yes, I’m waiting for Monbiot to apologise for his knee-jerk calls for resignation. He jumped the gun, and showed no sign of backing away from that position over the last few months.

    He fell for the misrepresentations and smears, and should own up to it.

  27. #27 Dave Andrews
    April 1, 2010

    WotWot,

    There were no hysterics, merely a question about how anyone could believe a one day hearing was able to resolve anything?

    Do you believe that is possible?

  28. #28 chek
    April 1, 2010

    Dave A said @ #24 “A one day hearing and Jones is ‘vindicated’. Come on Tim not even you can believe that to be true”.

    C’mon Dave A, be fair.

    They did allow Boehmer-Christiansen and McinTyres to spew their incoherent dribble during the course of it.

    How much more of a handicap can you tosseurs require or wish for?

  29. #29 el gordo
    April 1, 2010

    I would like to apologise for ever doubting the veracity of the hockey stick.

  30. #30 pough
    April 1, 2010

    There were no hysterics, merely a question about how anyone could believe a one day hearing was able to resolve anything?

    If I’m not mistaken, you’re the one who’s done the exhaustive study the relationship between time spent on hearings and their possibility of resolution, right? It was pretty definitive, from what I recall, although some folks said you didn’t spend enough time on it for it to have been able to resolve anything. Did you ever address those concerns?

    Do you believe that is possible?

    Let’s put it this way: a billion single-day hearings will come to a resolution before you ever say anything worthwhile.

  31. #31 Dan L.
    April 1, 2010

    Monbiot is still silent. Maybe he should resign.

  32. #32 Other Mike
    April 1, 2010

    @31. Maybe Monbiot is just horribly embarrassed at having fallen for the denialist spin?

    @24. Perhaps you neglected to read it, Dave Andrews? He has no case to answer.

    We all understand your bitter disappointment at now two formal inquiries which have found there is no evidence of fudged data in climate science, but unfortunately whether they convene for a day or a year patiently waiting for evidence of fudged data to turn up, it is not going to change this situation. To be fair, they did call for submissions, both written and verbal, however I’m not sure that the “liar, liar, pants on fire” submission favoured by the denialist community is generally considered conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.

    Now, your boys have had access to all this raw climate data plus the software code used to process it for quite a while since this event occurred (plus access to everyone else’s data for years before that). How’s that data analysis going showing that it was manipulated to show warming? Everything seems to be real quiet on that front. Can we assume that you’re still “working on it”?

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    April 1, 2010

    The source for First Nations and Aboriginal news?

    Sheesh, we used to have better POEs. It’s like their heart’s not in it any more.

  34. #34 P. Lewis
    April 1, 2010

    Perhaps Monbiot is keeping his powder dry until Sir Muir Russell’s inquiry reports.

  35. #35 Steve Reuland
    April 1, 2010

    There were no hysterics, merely a question about how anyone could believe a one day hearing was able to resolve anything?

    It took me about 5 minutes of reading the emails to discover that they did not say what the denialists claimed they said.

    One day is more than enough to conclude that there’s no there, there.

  36. #36 Bud
    April 1, 2010

    P.Lewis

    Perhaps Monbiot is keeping his powder dry until Sir Muir Russell’s inquiry reports.

    You are probably right, and to be fair, I’d probably do the same had I put myself in Monbiot’s position.

    Incidentally, the pre-emptive accusations of cover-up on that score have already started over in climate Lala-Land. McIntyre has been going into hysterics over it.

  37. #37 pough
    April 1, 2010

    @33 I ain’t no Poe, I just get a little annoyed by cryptic comments without links that point to sites with incredibly generic names like “Drum”. I did a search. What I found was what I described (plus a billion percussion sites). After a lot more searching, I found the site he was referring to. After a lot more searching on that site, I found the article. Since he knew what the URL was, he could have just included it. In the third person, of course, so it would have still been annoying. ;-)

  38. #38 pough
    April 1, 2010
  39. #39 el gordo
    April 1, 2010

    Monbiot is hedging his bets, while James Lovelock is looking at the big picture.

    ‘We haven’t got the physics worked out yet….

    We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.’

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    April 1, 2010

    I ain’t no Poe…

    I wasn’t sure you were, but couldn’t resist the implied pun in response to your somewhat cryptic comment ;-)

  41. #41 WotWot
    April 2, 2010

    There were no hysterics, merely a question about how anyone could believe a one day hearing was able to resolve anything?

    It took me about 5 minutes of reading the emails to discover that they did not say what the denialists claimed they said.
    One day is more than enough to conclude that there’s no there, there.

    Exactly.

  42. #42 MikeH
    April 2, 2010

    Does this mean that billionaire oilmen David and Charles Koch are entitled to a refund of their US$50 million?

    Greenpeace Case Study:

    [The Koch-funded “ClimateGate” Echo Chamber](http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/case-study-the-koch-funded-c) and
    [Exposing the dirty money behind fake climate science](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dirty-money-climate-30032010)

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    April 2, 2010

    el gordo quoting out-of-context:

    It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate.

    And it’s absolutely naive, stupid even, to assume that dumping vast quantities of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere will have no significant adverse effect.

  44. #44 MikeH
    April 2, 2010

    I found this comment on the Times Online article. Thanks Adam R. whoever you are :-)

    The deniers are wailing across the internet: the investigation did not confirm their ignorant suspicions; it must have been fixed.

    If God Himself had produced stone tablets exonerating Jones, a million deniers would have become atheists overnight.

  45. #45 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    The second inquiry into ClimateGate will be chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.

    The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world and has failed to declare it.

    James Delingpole and Bishop Hill have the wrap on the conflicts of interest and power plays in the second committee, and how the GLOBE company was set up to avoid FOI’s.

    In 2007 Globe created “a forum for legislators and business leaders to discuss the 2012 climate agreement, illegal logging and related issues”.

    Like the end of the world.

  46. #46 sod
    April 2, 2010

    get over it el gordo.

    nothing of any relevance was inside those STOLEN MAILS.

    this will now be confirmed by a series of investigations.

    just be happy with the misinformation and confusion that denialists were able to spread among the uneducated.

  47. #47 Fran Barlow
    April 2, 2010

    What is telling about the reaction of the delusionals here is that once again, they demonstrate the behaviour they disingenuously complain of in climate scientists.

    The data from the stolen emails has been ecamined and the result doesn’t fit their model — that being that these emails offer evidence of a scientific fraud on a global scale — which can only prove that the data is wrong or thast this inquiry was part of the fraud. Their model is unfalsifiable, and of that, they have not the least skepticism.

  48. #48 Paul UK
    April 2, 2010

    sod
    >nothing of any relevance was inside those STOLEN MAILS.

    Loxburgh isn’t heading the email inquiry.
    There are two inquiries, one into the emails and another into the science.

    Loxburgh is leading the science inquiry.
    Sir Muir Russell is leading the inquiry looking at the emails.

  49. #49 Other Mike
    April 2, 2010

    No matter how many formal inquiries find…what was it again?…..oh yeah that’s right – no case to answer – the sceptics are not going to be happy until some inquiry, any inquiry dammit, finds evidence of a grand conspiracy.

    They could be waiting quite some time for that, given the body of scientific evidence collected over decades.

    These people are just mental. I’m now totally convinced of that (yeah I’m a slow learner). They have ‘roos running loose in the top paddock. They really, truly do.

  50. #50 Lars Karlsson
    April 2, 2010

    Only, Fran, the scientific fraud on a global scale is not a testable hypothesis in the skeptiverse: it is a self-evident axiom. And a corollary of this axiom is that the emails (which were leaked by somebody who couldn’t stomack the fraud) must contain evidence of the fraud. Consequently, the failure of the committee to find any evidence of fraud implies that the whole investigation was a white-wash. It all follows logically from the axiom. There is no way it can be otherwise. In the skeptiverse.

  51. #51 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    Thanks for the clarification, Paul.

  52. #52 Ezzthetic
    April 2, 2010

    Seem to me the denialistas missed a golden opportunity to make out that this was an April Fools gag post.

  53. #53 Chris From Europe
    April 2, 2010

    German magazine Der Spiegel published an at least partially denialist article. “Fair and balanced” …

  54. #54 Jeremy C
    April 2, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    I require your details, address, phone number, email, professional associations and collaborations etc.

    This is because I am going to serve you with a FOI request to check what work you are doing on the data and code that has been released by groups such as CRU, etc. The reason I can serve the FOI request is that my taxes paid for that data and my taxes have paid for its release and my taxes have paid for that unneeded UK parliamentary enquiry. So if you are going to handle the data I helped pay for then I want to know if I am getting my moneys’ worth.

    If you are not doing anything with that data and didn’t request it then fine just confirm that for me. If you refuse by saying you are not in the UK tax juristriction and so not covered then I am tax resident in two territories so I will make the request in the other territory.

    So are you doing anything to analyse the data and code?

  55. #55 DBeckerMich, Ph.D.
    April 2, 2010

    The tone of many of these comments is disappointing, to say the least. It seems pretty clear that Jones is a very bad scientist or simply dishonest (I prefer the former.) There have been so many peer reviewed holes blown into his scientific model of global warming that no serious scientist should take it seriously. He, as some of his colleagues, is an embarrassment to the rich history of western science that precedes him. I should also note that anyone who uses the word “denier” in this context is a low life; the implicit ad hominem argument underlying the use of this indecent term flows from the weakness of the underlying argument.

  56. #56 Steve Reuland
    April 2, 2010

    @39:

    We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate.

    To the extent that there is substantial uncertainty about future warming, the issue should be treated as an insurance problem. Low-cost steps should be taken to minimize the probability of high-cost consequences. I am not certain that my house will burn down, but I still buy fire insurance.

    But mitigation is the one thing that denialists are dogmatically opposed to. They cannot admit, therefore, that substantial warming might occur but hopefully won’t be too bad, because it still argues for the same course of action. So they’re forced to believe that global warming is a hoax or a fraud, and (ironically for people calling themselves ‘skeptics’), they adopt a position of absolute certainty that unlimited carbon emissions will never cause significant warming.

    This is why, as Lars pointed out, the existence of a vast global warming conspiracy is a self-evident axiom for these people. It is the only way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance caused by science and their belief system going in opposite directions.

  57. #57 Steve Reuland
    April 2, 2010

    There have been so many peer reviewed holes blown into his scientific model of global warming that no serious scientist should take it seriously.

    Okay, I challenge you to show us these “peer-reviewed” holes. Citations please.

  58. #58 John Mashey
    April 2, 2010

    re: 48
    Loxburgh?

    Lord Ronald Oxburgh is leading the science inquiry. He is a *very* good guy, was the long-time Rector of Imperial College, and for a while, was recruited Chairman of Shell (to clean up the mess).

    He is pretty blunt, and and surprised some people in My fears for the planet, a most un-oil-chiefy interview, done by The Guardian’s David Adam, who has been doing good work on the IOP mess in UK.

  59. #59 Dave
    April 2, 2010

    @DBeckerMich, Ph.D.

    Thanks for that self-righteous, evidence free rant.

    Thanks for confirming yet again that – like children that feel the need to append their age when writing letters to newspapers or magazines – it is those that are most divorced from a credible understanding of the science at hand that feel the burning need to tack letters at the end of their name at every opportunity. Every time I see it it reminds me of “Arnold J. Rimmer (Bsc Ssc)”.

    Thanks for confirming yet again that those that leap to accusations of Ad Hominem are normally those without either evidence to back up their position or indeed an understanding of what Ad Hominem actually means.

    As per your request, I will refrain from labelling you a “denier”. You may have your pick of “mind-bogglingly stupid”, or “tone-trolling liar”.

  60. #60 pough
    April 2, 2010

    The tone of many of these comments is disappointing, to say the least.

    Really? I hadn’t thought so.

    It seems pretty clear that Jones is a very bad scientist or simply dishonest (I prefer the former.)

    I stand corrected.

  61. #61 Jeremy C
    April 2, 2010

    DBeckerMich, Ph.D. @ 55

    You said of Phil Jones:

    “his scientific model of global warming”.

    What model is this? Why do you call it a model? Could you describe it for us using references (as you would’ve been taught to do all through undergrad to awarding of your PhD) and how it fits or doesn’t with the science of global warming.

  62. #62 dhogaza
    April 2, 2010

    If God Himself had produced stone tablets exonerating Jones, a million deniers would have become atheists overnight.

    Apparently Adam R and I think a lot alike, though I said “If God himself hit them over the head with stone tablets exonerating Jones …”

    Too funny, though I don’t remember where I posted it. We’re both right, too.

    There have been so many peer reviewed holes blown into his scientific model of global warming that no serious scientist should take it seriously.

    Psst … even PhDs can learn to do the Google and figure out that Phil Jones isn’t a climate modeler.

  63. #63 Steve Reuland
    April 2, 2010
    “his scientific model of global warming”.

    What model is this?

    It sounds suspiciously like “Al Gore’s theory”.

  64. #64 pough
    April 2, 2010

    I should also note that anyone who uses the word “denier” in this context is a low life; the implicit ad hominem argument underlying the use of this indecent term flows from the weakness of the underlying argument.

    I agree. Use of the indecent term “low life” flows from the weakness of the underlying argument, which was that Phil Jones is either incompetent or dishonest because all the models (he never made) have been blown out of the water by anywhere up to zero peer-reviewed papers.

    It’s hard to undermine an argument like that, so bravo. That takes real skill.

  65. #65 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    McIntyre’s Myrmidon said (65),

    “The planet has been cooling since 1998.”

    Which is why 9 of the 10 warmest years on record all date after 1998. Thanks for playing anyway.

  66. #66 Elmer, Ph.D
    April 2, 2010

    I should also note that anyone who uses the word “denier” in this context is a low life;

    I’ve always preferred the term “denialiscenti”.

  67. #67 Dave Andrews
    April 2, 2010

    Jeremy C,

    Oh aren’t you a card? Hang on your initial is C so you may well be!

  68. #68 Dave Andrews
    April 2, 2010

    Jeremy C,

    The amount of money expended on this enquiry would be but a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of that that may have been wasted on climate change research over the last 20 years.

  69. #69 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    Money spent on climate change research has not really been wasted, because it will help us detect imminent global cooling as it happens.

    We will adapt quickly, avoid mass starvation and economic dislocations, simply by being more aware.

  70. #70 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    Although $80 billion might seem a little excessive, there are satellites and lots of boffins in white coats.

  71. #71 Other Mike
    April 2, 2010

    @65. *Sigh*. Whoever would’ve thought you’d pick an anomously hot year to compare all the long term trends to? Haven’t you guys stopped playing this game yet? Everyone else can see right through it, why can’t you?

    DBeckerMich PhD, telling everyone you have a PhD doesn’t make you default to a higher level of intelligence and commonsense, as we have seen so often.

    “I should also note that anyone who uses the word “denier” in this context is a low life; the implicit ad hominem argument underlying the use of this indecent term…”

    Wow! Arguing that anyone using the term “denier” is a “lowlife”, is guilty of using ad hominem, and therefore has a weak argument. The hypocrisy in this statement is extreme.

  72. #72 Jeremy C
    April 2, 2010

    Dave Andrews @ 68

    Stop wriggling

    Dave Andrews @ 69

    Exactly the reason why I want to make sure you are using the O/P of my taxpayers money properly.

    So stop hiding, wriggling, etc and hand over your details. I want to get that FOI in quicksmart, as the first in a production line process.

  73. #73 Jeremy C
    April 2, 2010

    Can one of the denialiti trolling around on this blog please tell The planet has been cooling since 1998 @ 65 that the 1998 cooling meme is well deaded and can’t be used to fool people any more (why d’you think McClean et al wrote their paper, they must have known that meme was going to be shot down by the evidence).

  74. #74 sod
    April 2, 2010

    Money spent on climate change research has not really been wasted, because it will help us detect imminent global cooling as it happens.

    el gordo, all your posts are plain out stupid.

  75. #75 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    El Gordo, did you every state when you expect this significant global cooling to happen?

  76. #76 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    *Ever. D’oh.

  77. #77 chek
    April 2, 2010

    Looks like since the great hope McinTyres was called up to the plate with his magnum opus, and then blew it, it’s back to the good ol’ standbys for the denialati.

    Climate? What’s a climate? And all variations therof.

  78. #78 Zibethicus
    April 2, 2010

    DBeckerMich, Ph.D. @ 55

    “I should also note that anyone who uses the word “denier” in this context is a low life; the implicit ad hominem argument underlying the use of this indecent term flows from the weakness of the underlying argument.”

    Aww…you don’t like ‘deniosaur’, either, then?

    How about ‘cliar’? That’s firmly fact-based by now…

    ->Zibethicus<-, certified low life

  79. #79 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    As a member of the Denialati I believe the world is cooling, even though the satellites tell us differently.

    Before you scream Kruger-Dunning, we will eventually be buying sulphate particulate credits.

  80. #80 Fran Barlow
    April 2, 2010

    Before you scream Kruger-Dunning

    As usual, you have it arse about …

    Your other name is Poe right?

  81. #81 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    “As a member of the Denialati I believe the world is cooling, even though the satellites tell us differently.”

    The ground instrumentation says otherwise too. The volume of sea ice says otherwise as well, as does the world’s glaciers, and so on. At least you admit you’re in denial. That’s the first step in getting help for your problem. Is there a reason you think your feelings trump facts?

  82. #82 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    >Is there a reason you think your feelings trump facts?

    Yes, Robert. He’s in denial. Circular I know, but it’ll have to do.

  83. #84 caerbannog
    April 2, 2010


    Sea ice is about average.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaiceindex/images/dailyimages/Nstddevtimeseries.png

    Looks like someone needs to take “Geometry for Dummies”. That’s the class that covers things like area vs. volume…

  84. #85 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    “Sea ice is about average.”

    I said the volume and not extent of sea ice for a reason. Volume is what’s important. Try to keep up! :)

  85. #86 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    Last time I checked, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand are growing and I have a long list of others around the world if you want to see.

  86. #87 dhogaza
    April 2, 2010

    el gordo, all your posts are plain out stupid.

    Or brilliant. He sure keeps y’all busy, gotta admit that, no?

  87. #88 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    Oh criminy El Gords, you even fail at cherry picking. It took me two minutes to find out that, for example, New Zealand’s Tasman Glacier is rapidly retreating. This is not offered as evidence of climate change one way or the other, only that El Gordo is wrong. Again.

    So, you have a list of advancing glaciers. Good for you. Do you also, for the sake of balance, have a list of retreating glaciers? Or a handy chart of cumulative mass balance from the World Glacier Monitoring Service?

  88. #89 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    “Last time I checked, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand are growing and I have a long list of others around the world if you want to see.”

    Check again.
    http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/freshwater/news/all/glaciers-continue-to-shrink2

  89. #90 Andy
    April 2, 2010

    Sea Ice: ok, it’s my fault. I predicted that the artic sea ice had reached its maxiumum extent after the first week in March; and look what happened. BTW I’m also a Cubs Fan(Chicago baseball team that hasn’t won the series since 1908). My dad swears they lose because I watch their games. He’s probably right. I think it has something to do with the Hymenberg Principle. You know, watching something affects it like how long it takes a kettle to boil.

    At any rate, the maximum artic sea ice aerial extent is very subject to which way the wind blows (not as much the minimum, esp. the extreme minimums we’ve been seeing recently). As soon as that big chunk of floating mush breaks loose off Alaska (the one area that is seeing above average extent), the aerial extent will drop like a rock.

    Check out Cryosphere today for a better look at conditions other than total extent.

  90. #91 el gordo
    April 2, 2010

    This is a seasonal factor, the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt.

  91. #92 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    >Wrong. More of them are in the 1930s.

    Ahahahahaha!

    Ha!

    Hahaha!

    Someone has been reading Plimer’s book*. And believing it. How hilarious is that? Look, 1934 was a little warmer than 1998 for the USA only. Globally the last 10 years have been much warmer than the 1930s.

    I know it’s difficult for some people to grasp, but the USA ≠ the whole world.

    *Or some other equally unreliable source.

  92. #93 Steve Reuland
    April 2, 2010
    Which is why 9 of the 10 warmest years on record all date after 1998. Thanks for playing anyway.

    Wrong. More of them are in the 1930s.

    That’s easy enough to check, and it appears that you are the one who is wrong. Not just slightly, but wildly wrong. Not a single year in the 1930s was warmer than any year since 1998.

  93. #94 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    “Wrong. More of them are in the 1930s.”

    Nonsense. None of the years from the 1930′s is warmer than *any* year in the last few decades. You’re thinking of US temps, which only describe 2% of the Earth’s surface. All ten of the warmest years on record globally have been from 1998 on, and are roughly about a half a degree C above any year from the 1930′s. No wonder you like McIntyre’s website; you’re used to sloppy arguments being applauded. Welcome to the real world.

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    April 2, 2010

    Sea ice volume, average thickness and multi-year ice cover are all on significant declining trends, despite occasional small rises from year to year.

    Yes, winds certainly affect it…but winds affect it much more strongly if the ice is thin and multi-year ice less common.

    And note that feet on the … er, ice … have discovered a form of ice that shows up on remote sensors like known forms, but is much less substantial than they are. This could mean remote measurements are currently biased too high :-(

    I’m sure we covered this a couple of weeks ago, but the goldfish keep orbiting.

  95. #96 Bernard J.
    April 2, 2010

    I’m almost convinced that Fatso is a Poe, spouting the silliest of the Denialati tripe, in order that the rest of us demonstrate how easily such nonsense is refuted.

    Most of the time his denialist memes are so flimsy that one does not even need to hit the primary literature (or wander to one’s local university library if one is not academically-connected). The answers are [easy to find using the electronic smart-arse](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png)…

    Interestingly, where one would expect glacier mass to increase, as warming increases precipitation more than it increases melting (after all, many places around the planet that are warming are still colder than the melting point of ice), one observes such mass accumulation. These regions are minor in comparison to those demonstrating mass loss though, and New Zealand doesn’t seem to be one of the former…

  96. #97 Erasmussimo
    April 2, 2010

    The question is asked:

    What is the optimal temperature of the planet?

    The answer, of course, depends on your value system. If you are a penguin, you’d probably want rather cold temperatures. If you live in a coastal delta or a coral atoll, you’d definitely consider any increase in temperature to be very, very bad; on the other hand, if you own a lot of real estate positioned just just a bit higher such land, then you would prefer increases in temperature, because they would increase the value of your land by making it beachfront property. If you live in the tropics at an altitude greater than 2 meters, you really don’t care. If you live in the far north, you probably don’t want to see any warming, because the destruction of the permafrost will make all your existing buildings unstable.

    There will be winners and losers from climate change. But the overall result for most of humanity is that increases in temperature will diminish global GDP by about 3% by the year 2100. That in turn should pretty well cancel any growth.

  97. #98 Stu
    April 2, 2010

    >That’s weather not climate. Oh, wait…you’re a Warmista…It’s okay then.

    Yep. And you’re a moronic troll. Glad we understand each other.

  98. #99 Robert Murphy
    April 2, 2010

    I said,
    “Globally the last 10 years have been much warmer than the 1930s.”
    McIntyre’s Myrmidon said,
    “That’s weather not climate. Oh, wait…you’re a Warmista…It’s okay then.”

    It’s a fact – no year in the 1930′s was even close to being as warm as any year in the last few decades. You said that more years in the 1930′s were warmer than those in the last 10 years. That’s simply nonsense. Now you are flailing away with gibberish about climate vs weather. You made the claim about the 1930′s having more years in the top ten than the last ten years do. Put up or shut up. Which years in the 1930′s were they, and show your evidence.
    PS: US temps are not global temps.

  99. #100 Bud
    April 2, 2010

    @”The Planet Has Been Cooling Since 1998″ (feel free to change that title to reflect reality any time):

    What is the optimal temperature of the planet?

    There are a host of reasons why this question is – to put it politely – redundant. The planet has no universal optimal temperature. Optimal for what particular species or ecosystem? Optimal for which of Earth’s many human communities? Aside from which, it’s the rate of divergence from a temperature we are already adapted to that is the issue, it’s not a question (yet, and hopefully not for a long time in the future) of absolute temperatures.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!