“I am lazy. THanks for doing the leg work! "No statistically significant global warming". Perfect! Here is his exact quote from the leaked climategate emails regarding the lack of warming, "“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020". Phil Jones WANTS warming?”
“The actiivst sreamed ice age at the end of a period of cooling. When that stopped and a period of warming began they shouted global warming. When the warming stopped in the late 90's we were all educated about climate change. When we began experiencing colder winter thoughout the world we were scolded that weather was not climate. Now we hear about extreme "weather" as evidence of global warming... I mean global climate disruption. God its tough to keep up.”
“Impressive stats coming from the environmental activist Rahmstorf. Phil Jones arguably one of the most influential climate scientists in the world and a warmist admitted in a 2010 BBC interview that there has been no statistical evidence of warming since 1998. The private emails obtained in Climategate show that these powerful scientists ackowlege the lack of warming privately while promoting current warming publicly. Jones even "hopes" that a prediction of no warming through 2020 is does not come true. Wow why would he wishing the horrors of warming upon the world?”
maxwells on Dec 6, 2011 at 18:02:19
“Haven't seen you deniers get anything factual right yet.”
qwert1234 on Dec 6, 2011 at 16:47:35
“osadog: " Jones even "hopes" that a prediction of no warming through 2020 is does not come true. Wow why would he wishing the horrors of warming upon the world?"
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
> Still a way to go before 2014.
> I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away."
He's talking about decadal predictions, not current temps, and it doesn't seem like he wants it to continue to warm for the sake of warming, but rather he would like to see skeptics rendered speechless. That last sentence seems to indicate that.
Kind of similar to the way people debate this topic on Huffpost. While not necessarily wanting it to get hotter, some (myself included) still take pleasure in proving people wrong and rendering them speechless (or in more general terms, since we are on the internet here, responseless).
"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."
""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.""”
“A dramatically warmed planet? Lets keep the drama out of it and look only at the science.The science tells us that the warming that has occurred in the 20th century is not unprecedented. Despite the increase in CO2 we have had no warming since the late 90s. The climategate emails reveal that their science has been corrupted by politics. The climate models for the most part are tools used to push the agenda or the "cause" to use their terminology.”
chrisd3 on Dec 6, 2011 at 09:30:10
“"Despite the increase in CO2 we have had no warming since the late 90s"
First, that's wrong, and second, that's insufficient data to be significant anyway. Why you "skeptics" are completely unable to distinguish between short-term variability and long-term trends is a complete mystery.
"climategate emails reveal that their science has been corrupted by politics"
The cherry-picked out-of-context emails reveal nothing of the sort.
And what's in the 98% of the emails that the hackers and their masters refuse to release? Why withhold 98% of the documents you have unless they don't suit your purpose?”
Jim Milks on Dec 6, 2011 at 07:22:19
“"Despite the increase in CO2 we have had no warming since the late 90s."
Lie. The truth is that warming has continued unabated, as you can see for yourself: http://bit.ly/tXk5P8
1880-2011 slope = 0.00589475ºC per year (0.589ºC per century)
1998-2011 slope = 0.0110309ºC per year (1.103ºC per century)
Additionally, global warming won't stop until the Earth's radiative budget is in balance. Right now, there is more energy coming in from the sun than is leaving as infrared (Hansen et al. 2005: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf). Anytime energy accumulates in a system, the temperature increases. Simple physics. Unless something happens to stabilize the energy budget, the Earth will continue to warm.
"The climategat e emails reveal that their science has been corrupted by politics."
Isn't that the same claim people like you made two years ago? And isn't that the same claim shown to be false by eleven separate investigations?”
ClimateHawk on Dec 5, 2011 at 20:08:47
“An excellent summary of long term trends can be found here:
“More like "pay no attention to the hacked emails behind the curtain:.Talk about cherry picking specific emails. The ones chosen for this article are just the tip of the melting iceberg. Why not reference the emails related to the dodging of FOI requests? None related to the deletion of emails. Not the one that portrays Mike Mann's work as pathetic and dishonest.”