Global Warming Stopped in 1995

The claim that there is no statistically significant evidence comes from Phil Jones, the scientist at East Anglia University who came up with the (in)famous “hockey stick graph,” purposefully stonewalled on Freedom on Information Requests, and so on. The only similar about-face I can recall is when Gorbechev came clean and said Marxism was just used for propaganda purposes.

Quick wrote up at the Daily Mail. The full interview is up at the BBC.

Update: More at Geographic Travels:

The man at the center of the scandal, Dr. Phil Jones has both greatly helped damaged science. His lies and dishonesty have revealed the irrationality of the current wave of global warming alarmism which was based on secular religion and politics. However, his actions have hurt anyone currently trying to honestly figure out the current state of the global environment as Jones’ “crying wolf” has hardened the hearts of much of the public.

Dr. Jone is staring to come clean. He has said some surprising things in a recent interview with the BBC. Jones discusses many interesting things but there are some surprises coming from him. He admits that the Medieval Warm Period (the hot period around the year 1000, a time when England made wine and Greenland was green in the south) was a global warm period, that the warming trends such as 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 were similar to the recent warming period, and that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995!

Developed countries can afford the cost of many environmental programs. As a society we should invest in a clean and healthy future but we must allow science to be practiced openly free from the influence of whose those who take their positions as dogma which must be defended at all cost.

4 thoughts on “Global Warming Stopped in 1995”

  1. I think the collapse of the Global Warming hoax is going to be one of most important (top 3) news stories of 2010. Maybe the most important.

    Also, I read that the US DeptOfEnergy if going to start OK’ing nuke power plants again!

  2. From your BBC link:

    “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.”

    Of course, who cares about direct quotes from the horse’s mouth when you can, instead, construct your own context of their words in order to suite your own narrative.

  3. Purpleslog,

    It’s certainly an object lesson, about the political dangers of taking tentative science talking points into a political debate!


    Perhaps true, but as is clear to anyone with statistical training, Dr. Jones agrees with me. Saying that a result approach significance is like saying at least the F value is above zero — it is meaningless for confirming or rejecting hypothesis.

    Anything else is simply exploratory, and is of the same scientific validity as, say, using as ‘evidence’ interviews from a hiking magazine. [1]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *