Climate Denialists At it Again - Creating a Fake Quote to Misrepresent an Interview by Phil Jones

Funny how the media and climate cynics have largely ignored the fact that the Pentagon has addressed climate change in its Quadrennial Defense Review:

"Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future."

Apparently, the cynics would avoid the relatively lower costs of addressing climate change now, preferring to punt higher costs (including increased risk of war) to future generations. Now, what is "conservative" about that?

It seems they care more about the short-term profits of ExxonMobil than they do about national security or intelligent analysis.

I suppose they prefer supporting communist China and terrorists than keeping good renewal technology jobs in America.

Gotta luv dem "free markets"!!!

In the meantime, despite appearances, the cynics' PR campaign doesn't seem to be working:

Q: What do public support for clean energy and global temperatures have in common?
A: They both keep going up despite the anti-science, pro-polluter echo chamber.

Great link, Steve.

For the record (from the poll at the link), the public strongly supports regulating CO2 as a pollutant and clear majorities support cap-and-trade and requiring utilities to get a portion of their electricity from renewable sources.

See the full poll information at Steve's link.

Of course, polls are polls. Public opinion doesn't change the science, which overwhelmingly shows that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are significantly contributing to climate change.

"...polls are polls. Public opinion doesn't change the science...."

True. But the cynics' pr campaign is aimed at public opinion, in an attempt to sabotage climate legislation. It's good to see that they are failing in the attempt to influence public opinion. THAT should be made very clear to the politicians.

Unfortunately you are correct, Steve. The denialist game is aimed not at the science, because the science proves them to be not only incorrect, but obvious liars. Their game is to confuse the public, and thus keep any policy action from occurring.

There has to be more effort to get the actual state of the science out to the public better. But scientists do science, not PR. And denialists do, well, they do what they have always done, which is exactly PR. They lobby for whichever industry is paying them, and that is exactly what they are doing now.

As I recall, you've made your point here several times.

And yet the denialists keep on lying. Why is that, John? As Steve B has noted, denying the realities of climate change endanger American national security and raise the costs of taking action. It also helps ship more American jobs overseas and gives a leg up to China and India and other countries who are not standing still and making believe the science isn't there.

Yes he has John and David (and all of us) need to continue making the point to counter act the wave of stupidity financed by corporate greed that is sweeping this country.

The other front in the cyncis' PR campaign is "snowmageddon". Yet...

An amazing, though clearly little-known, scientific fact: We get more snow storms in warm years!

A denialist on a message board posted a link to this. Your thoughts?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

From your link:
__________

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

Interesting. As usual the newspapers write a headline that implies one study somehow describes the entire body of science. It doesn't.

It's unclear what study to which the newspaper is referring. It seems to suggest it is coming from John Christy, who is a well known climate skeptic in Alabama. They also mention Ross McKittrick, who is not a scientist but and economist and most famous for his collaborations with the ex-mining executive Steve McIntyre. But what they really are relying on, and cite in their link at the bottom of the article, is the D'Aleo/Watts non-peer reviewed report published by the Heartland Institute. The report was thrown together to give denialists something to counter a real peer-reviewed study published this year in the Journal of Geophysical Letters - Atmospheres. These real scientists demonstrated through actual research and analysis that the known issues with surface station records do NOT affect the conclusions at all.

D'Aleo, of course, is the proprietor of Icecap, the denialist blog. He isn't a climate scientist, though he was a TV weatherman for many years and was an executive at the Weather Channel (but has never done any climate research ever). Watts runs his WUWT blog and also was a TV weatherman and also never did any climate research ever (but does sell weather gadgets like temperature stations, so there is a bit of a conflict of interest in his campaign to discredit the temperature record). And as I said, Watts and D'Aleo's non-scientific and largely anecdotal report was published by the Heartland Institute, the non-science free market lobbying organization that became famous for its lobbying on behalf of the tobacco industy (smoking doesn't cause cancer, people who smoke cause cancer).

It's perhaps useful to notice that the last paragraph in the article reaffirms completely what the totality of the data say:

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

I see Steve responded while I was writing my comment so I recommend anyone reading this to see his comment above mine.

Here's another winning response:
"If global warming is the result of the polar ice melting, resulting in darker water surfaces warming up to accelerate the process then wouldn't the reverse also be true? Recently all of the news broadcasters were reporting the 'historical' snowfall recently where all the contenental US had snow on the ground. There is also historical evidence that climate change has occured rapidly (the fall of the Mayans due to profound drought for example). There is insuffecient scientific documentation to make a claim toward predicting climate change. Reliable records only go back less than 200 years. Anecdotal evidence goes back to the middle ages. Everything else is conjecture. Politicizing science results in Monkey trials. There's just not enough data to make predictions on how the climate will change or react to human interference. Any meteorologist will admit that predicting the weather is guess work after a week."

The above quote has too many laughable parts.

We obviously need a primer on the difference between "climate" and "meteorology". Meteorology has to do with immediate weather conditions and is difficult to predict, as quoted, for more than a week: specific rainfalls and temperatures and such. Climate has to do with long-term conditions and, generally, is fairly static. It has to do with ranges in temperatures and amounts of precipitation over a year.

Climate has to do with long term effects, like the melting of the polar ice cap. Weather has to do with immediate events, like the snow across the States this year. The two are completely different in scale.

Anyone who doesn't think that climate is changing on a long term basis should ask an Inuit or Eskimo. They have been able to have the same way of life, hunting and fishing on/through ice for thousands of years. Now that is going away. This is not an inconvenient snowfall that ties up traffic for a day or two. It is the destruction of a huge physically stable artifact (the northern ice cap) and societies dependent on it (the Inuit) and potentially ramifications across the planet.

Paul, the denialist quote you posted is a good example of the "kitchen sink" strategy that I've posted on before. Just string together as many bumper stickers as you can and hope the morass is too wide to ford. Trouble is, not one of the bumper stickers is true.

Thanks for the great explanation, Ian. I suppose there are two types of people when it comes to NOT knowing the difference between weather and climate. One type are people who are just ill informed and apparently incapable of becoming, or unwilling to become, informed. The other type is represented by those people (e.g., Sean Hannity) who DO know the difference but choose to play the game because doing so is what makes them millions of dollars. It is these people who are the most cynical, most dishonest, most disgusting people imaginable. They have chosen to endanger the entire planet solely because they want to sell ad space on their programs, sell books, get paid huge speaking fees, and be celebrities.

I am a supporter of the fight for Climate Change actions yet, out of arguing/debate stamina in this war! Great post, I applaud your perseverance.

Alas, that is what the denialists count on. They are well funded and well practiced in the arts of deception (aka, lobbying). Which is why they put out these obvious misrepresentations even knowing that they will be found out. Their network of paid bloggers and other ideological lackeys will bounce the falsehoods off the echo chamber long after they have been proven to be false.

David I continue to support the issues through government sites and polls yet, I have no patience for debating these issues on Gather or any other blog site, the level of dialogue dips too low.

I understand completely. I appreciate your support.

Okay! :^)

My original comment was just to support your post!

Ah, David. I admire your perseverence. We need more citizens like yourself, continually putting the truth out there and calling them on their lies.

Whether you believe that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, there is still no denying the alarming acidification of our oceans. That is caused directly with the massive increases in CO2 levels over the past few decades and will result in a drastic change in our lives probably even before the effects of CO2 on our land/weather will affect us. This is not based on any kind of cycle in temperature - it is ONLY attributed to the ridiculous levels of carbon-based fuels we use and will continue to use unless people wise up.

Exactly, the oceans are absorbing CO2 as fast as they can but will eventually max out. And there are many other indications of warming and climate change. The evidence is simply undeniable.

And it really shouldn't come as a shock. All the carbon that has been taken out of the atmosphere over billions of years is stored in oil and coal and pushed underground. And now in the short span of 50 to 100 years, we have extracted from the ground much of that stored carbon, burnt it, and sent it spewing back up into the air. So billions of years to remove it, less than 100 to put it back.

Is there any wonder there is a problem? Hello?

It's interesting to parse the full question and the full answer by Dr. Jones. Keep in mind that this was only one question out of many, and his answers to other questions provide additional added context. But for now, let's just look at the single question and answer.

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

The first thing to notice is that the question asks about a relatively short period of time, about 15 years. Quite a bit of variability occurs in that short a time span, including both the most warm year and the least year in recent records. Remember that every year is warm, so even the lesser warm years are still way hotter than anything in recent records. In fact, the entire time period of 15 years is the hottest on record.

The second thing to notice is that the question asks about "statistical significance." That is key. Because there still has been warming, as Dr. Jones clearly states. But the warming has not been "statistically significant." Statistical significant is a pretty high bar, so the fact that it just missed it doesn't mean the warming is not important. Think of a pole vaulter that almost gets over the bar at 17 feet, but just nicks it and knocks it off. No one would say that the pole vaulter didn't vault pretty high even though he didn't quite make it.

The answer in toto: 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.

Obviously the denialists took the first part of Jones' statement, grabbed a few pieces from the question, and fabricated their own sentence "complete with quotation marks" to intentionally make people believe that it is what Jones said. It isn't what he said at all.

What he said is that there was no statistically significant increase. Remember the pole vaulter? There was an increase in temperature during that time period but it just nicked the bar and didn't make it over the very strict levels of statistical significant. For the record, usually they use a level that is equivalent to either 95% or 99% certain that the values are different. Jones said that it just missed hitting 95% significance level. So just missing it could be 90+% certain that they were different. Now if you were told by the TV weather guy that there was a 90% chance of rain the next day you most certainly would have an umbrella handy. That's where this was.

Jones also reminds us that the 15 year period is rather short for looking at long-term statistical significance. There are many sections of the graph I show in my article above that there were relatively shallow slopes of the curve, and even some cases where the temperatures seemed to cool for a while. But it's pretty obvious where the long-term trend is. And Jones reiterates this in another comment in which he clearly states:

"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."

And yet, despite all of this, the denialists extract the words "Yes, but only just," then create their own "quote" and intentionally misrepresent both Jones and the state of the science.

And that is called dishonesty.

Hey Dave, I noticed you left this out:

"He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip
rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there
is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence
of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘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, then obviously the late 20th Century
warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current
warmth would be unprecedented.’"

So we are to believe the absent-minded professor now doubts his own colleagues' conclusions? Or does he?

He's given ONE job...to collate data, and he admits he's not organized. What a dolt, and his questionable methods should make skeptics of us ALL.

So we are to believe the absent-minded professor now doubts his own colleagues' conclusions? Or does he?

How do you reach that conclusion?

First off, I didn't leave it out. I clearly linked to the entire Q&A, and on more than one occasion. I addressed the false quotation, which was the point of this article as instigated by a comment on another of my posts. So this is a separate case.

Secondly, you've done the same thing as did the commenter - you attribute a quote to Dr. Jones that he never said. Nope, he did not say it. You really have to stop quoting denialist blogs as if they are the actual person being "quoted." It isn't very good for credibility when you start with deception. What you have done is conflated your blog article prejudgment into Jones' statement, thereby making it look like the denialist prejudgment is reflected in what he said. It isn't at all.

Thirdly, what Dr. Jones actually said, which is clearly in the linked Q&A is:

"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."

Now where in there do you think he "doubts his own colleagues' conclusions?" Jones is reporting what the scientific community has found. Which is that the MWP is more than likely an artifact of the UK-centric measurements during the early part of climate science research. The MWP seems to be a phenomenon of the northern hemisphere but doesn't represent the global picture at all (in case you forgot, there is also a southern hemisphere, which by definition, is half the planet).

So Jones' statement doesn't contradict the state of the science at all. It most certainly doesn't do what you have suggested it does. No one with a passing understanding of science, or an ability to read at greater than a two-dimensional level, would come to the conclusion you have reached.

He's given ONE job...to collate data, and he admits he's not organized. What a dolt, and his questionable methods should make skeptics of us ALL.

There is nothing in the Q&A about his organizational skills at all. As for "given one job," what on earth are you talking about. The guy has been at CRU for 34 years, has done significant research, has been involved (as author, co-author, or advisor) on about 270 peer-reviewed papers on climate research, is a professor, and has been director of the CRU for the last 5 or 6 years. Organization for doing research and organization to respond to frivolous FOIA requests are not the same things.

To-may-toe, tuh-ma-toe, David...we are saying the same things. It's our interpretation of this information that differs.

My contention is, and always will be, that with roughly 150 yrs. of verifiable data, how can we know humans have any impact on the global climate at all?

And when I said "one job" I meant in this instance...he had the job of collating, and verifying, data. He admits to being less than tidy (or did he NOT say that, too??) so I'm wondering what he has, and has not, included in his findings.

To-may-toe, tuh-ma-toe, David...we are saying the same things. It's our interpretation of this information that differs.

That's like saying we are both looking at an apple, which I call an apple and you call a Mack Truck, and saying we are both right.

My contention is, and always will be, that with roughly 150 yrs. of verifiable data, how can we know humans have any impact on the global climate at all?

Your premise, and your contention, are incorrect. We have data going back as far as 800,000 years in ice cores, etc. And we have seen exactly how humans have impacted the climate. There are reams of data that demonstrate this, in many different ways. And they all say the same thing.

And when I said "one job" I meant in this instance...he had the job of collating, and verifying, data. He admits to being less than tidy (or did he NOT say that, too??) so I'm wondering what he has, and has not, included in his findings.

What "instance" are you talking about? He discusses a body of research, his own, and that of the scientific community. As for "he admits to being less than tidy," perhaps you can show me exactly in the Q&A where he says anything of the sort.

If people could only put aside the tiring global warming debate, and start looking at acification level increases in our oceans, health studies that have linked all sorts of diseases and problems with air quality, etc., then that information alone should cause alarm and instant action.

It all comes down to greed and laziness. Stick with the status quo no matter how it is hurting the human race, other living things on the planet and our environment. Total insanity.

Well, I do sympathize with David. It is infuriating to see lies being put out there to further some sort of stupid political agenda. But, as you also point out, there are many, many reasons to clean up our air and work on alternative energy methods. I'm tired of banging my head against the collective wall with global warming nay-sayers. It's almost a moot point now, with all the ridiculous political garble out there, mostly funded by Big Oil. Let's stop the arguing and start cleaning the air - for our oceans and for our children's future.

We have a tendency to "stick with the devil you know rather than take a chance on the devil you don't know." In short, we don't like change, even when we beg for it.

The truth is that climate change endangers our national security, sends more American jobs overseas, stifles American ingenuity and innovation, and props up countries like China and India (and a host of others).

Too bad the denialists don't seem to care about America.

I'm sorry, what has the government telling you to do anything got to do with anything? Governments change hands - it should be obvious to you now that they have strong agendas and many people in power do things for reasons that are far from ethical, based on greed and stupidy. As an individual, adult citizen of this planet, you really should not be basing your views on what any governments tell you is 'fact'.

The government isn't telling us anything. Mostly they are sitting around figuring out new ways to get reelected.

It is the science that is telling us that climate change is here, and we are causing it.

If we don't act, it is our own fault.

I honestly don't care what other people around me do, JR. Just because you can find hypocrites on either side of the debate doesn't change the facts for me. I've never been one to say that when somebody else stops their bad or stupid behavior, that will be the day I stop mine. I think we'd be a lot better off if we just stopped listening to the pundits, started doing our own independent research and education and started paying less attention to what other people around us are doing. Things start, as with everything, with our own lives. If we want to be healthy, then we start eating right, exercising and staying away from bad things. We can also try to support people who are doing the right thing, too. If enough people do the right thing, it will affect society.

The thing that enfuriates me the most is the person who uses other people's bad behavior as an excuse for their own. Movements usually start with one or two people, not an entire society. Educating other people can be part of the movement...a vital part.

BUT- David- you are missing my message. The entire "Global Warming" debate is so full of blah blah, distortion, falsehoods and half-truths, it has taken on the same tenor as the debate over how many shooters killed Kennedy. Fact is, the water is now so muddy, we will never know.

You've answered your own question.

Take the Kennedy shooting (I assume you mean JFK and not RFK). There is the reality supported by all of the evidence - Oswald did it - and there are the conspiracy theorists and the cheats who claim things that defy logic, never mind evidence.

For climate change, there is the reality supported by all of the evidence - that climate change is happening and human activity is causing it - and there are the conspiracy theorists and the cheats who claim things that defy logic, evidence, and have been shown repeatedly to have lied. Just like they did with this interview of Dr. Jones in which they have spread around the blogosphere a false quote that says the opposite of Jones' view.

I think we'd be a lot better off if we just stopped listening to the pundits, started doing our own independent research and education and started paying less attention to what other people around us are doing. Things start, as with everything, with our own lives. If we want to be healthy, then we start eating right, exercising and staying away from bad things. We can also try to support people who are doing the right thing, too. If enough people do the right thing, it will affect society.

I would like to believe in an ideal world too but it seems that most people are so inundated with contradictory information that they simply choose to believe whatever agrees with their preconceived notions of the world. Which, of course, is why the denialist machine is so focused on, and so adept at, saturating the media and blogosphere with disinformation.

Google climate science and you're more likely to get tons of hits of denialist blogs and intentional disinformation than the actual science. Why? Well, partly because science isn't done on the blogosphere, it is done in science journals and at science conferences by scientists. Only recently have scientists attempted to get the real science message out to the public as a whole. Meanwhile, the denialists are fed and funded by long time lobbying groups who are well experienced with manipulating public opinion. That, in fact, has been their job. They know that the more garbage out there the more the whole process starts to stink. And when the stink permeates the room the general public can't tell that it is all coming from one place so assumes it comes from everyone.

Which again is the denialist machine's goal. Once they create the pig pen no one wants to roll around in the mud.

I would like to think that the media can be counted on to present accurate reporting, but that has long since gone by the wayside. All the media, save the blogosphere, have cut back science reporting to a bare minimum, if at all. And what's left is more likely to go sensational to sell ad time than it is to do honest journalistic reporting. And the blogosphere is a no-holds barred, no editing, no peer-review, no common sense free for all where anyone can write anything they want at any time they want, and they do. They also steal from one another and thus pass along the same disinformation to thousands and even millions of other people (if you tell two people, and they tell two people, and they tell two people...).

It's rather disappointing to see this happen. But the choices are to let the denialists continue to disinform and hurt the planet, or to make whatever attempt that can be made to keep things honest.

I'm doing my little part. It's very little, but it is a part.

And I commend you for it, David. You are absolutely correct - people need to be intelligent about where they go for legitimate information. If I was concerned about a certain disease, I wouldn't count on Google and blogs to provide me the most accurate view. I would research legitimate media, such as medical journals and other well-respected print publications.

Lazy people are going to be lazy people no matter what you do. Relying on sound bytes on the nightly news to educate oneself about science or medicine or any other important, complex topic is not only lazy, it's stupid. The internet, as you point out, poses its own challenges. In many ways, more data that is more easily accessible and unscreened makes education more difficult. Common sense should play a part, good critical thinking should also. Unfortunately, there are many that lack both.

There's also the mentality now of the 'sensational sound-byte of the day' in society now - people want to hear something new, short, often shallow and titillating, rather than something deep and meaningful, that often takes a lot longer to communicate & comprehend. They want black and white answers - and science is not black and white. It is a continuous process of learning, not a pat and dry, close the case effort.

I get frustrated with it in many areas. Impatience and laziness causes a lot of misinformation or partial information to be broadcasted and then used by people with their own agendas. Lack of knowledge and good education in how science works is another problem. Good science is a continuum, not a yes/no paradigm. You know that, I know that, but we also know that it makes it easier to attack.

I also agree that scientists, legitimate scientists, are not always the best communicators or lobbyists. Neither are good engineers, or good anythings...they are good because they are busy practicing in their areas. They need legitimate help from people who are good in those areas of PR and communication, but that often takes lots of money and goodness knows that science is one field not overflowing with spare funds to be put to that end.

It will take the individual will of each of us, melding into a collective will to turn the tide. And perhaps it will take a disaster of large proportion before others will open their eyes and stop this crazy nonsense.

Well said, Sheryl. And thank you always for your support.

Always the gentleman, Jericho.

I believe that we do need a unified, governmental effort. But, I for one have a brain and will use it. I'll purchase (and have) high-mileage/hybrid vehicles, I'll recycle and compost, I'll choose to spend more on items that are green. If you count yourself among the non-thinking apes that follow the Gresham Law, then do so. Be part of the problem rather than the solution. I'll continue doing my ethical thing and be content that at least I'm doing my part. How could I ever ask anybody else to do that if I'm not doing it myself?

See, that's one of the main problems with Americans. It's the stupid herd mentality - 'I'm not gonna do it if my neighbor doesn't. If my neighbor is unethical, it's okay for me to be!" No wonder our youth are so totally f-d up in this country. Just look at the adult role-models they have.

I sincerely hope that you are not responsible for raising children, Jericho. The thought is absolutely frightening to me.

WTF? You call me some delusional 'liberal', 'do-gooder', who mainly cares about making myself feel good and nothing else, and you then chastise me for 'resorting to insults'? You are classic, Jericho. Classic.

I'll stay on my side and you stay on your's, 'kay, babe? I don't live the way I do out of any kind of delusion or self-interest. I live the way I do because it's the right way to live. And if everybody did that, we'd be a helluva lot better off. People like you just cannot seem to get past your own laziness and dogma to realize that. You have to walk the walk, not make excuses for yourself. That's a big difference that I've seen between those you disparage as 'liberals' and those who are conservatives. Conservatives love to talk the sh*t, but can never get enough ethics up to actually live it. I think the dictionary refers to those kinds of people as hypocrites.

Jericho, stop harassing the other commenters. We get it. You're a professional cynic. You've made your point.

Case won and dismissed. I appreciate your gentlemanly behavior, David, but it's not really worth your time. You're way too intelligent and classy.

A view of the Jones interview from RealClimate.

And related information from Climate Progress.

Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow

......and a cooling planet can mean better suntans.......

A related post

Why we know it is CO2

Here is another post that explains how the denialists have lied about what Dr. Jones said. Pay particular attention to all the graphs.

Apparently the denialists don't care that their lies are so easy to disprove.

Did anyone even read the actual interview. Jones undermines the manmade global warming theory himself.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? .... the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just.

In addition, has ANY scientist EVER answered the following question: IF Cap-and-Trade is implemented and works 100% as hoped, and results in a 20% decrease in carbon emissions by 2020, what will be the effect? Will it reverse global warming; will it stop global warming; will it even significantly slow global warming? If it merely means that the earth will warm 0.9 degrees instead 0f 1.0 degrees over the next 40 years, why bother and destroy our economy in the process?

Did anyone even read the actual interview. Jones undermines the manmade global warming theory himself.

False. Did you even read my article? You know, THIS ONE, on which you are commenting? Jones does no such thing.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? .... the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Obviously you DID NOT read THIS ARTICLE. How can you leave a comment without actually reading the article on which you are commenting?

I went through this whole thing and showed how the question intentionally cherry picked the odd-length periods of time specifically to end up with the same rate. And that is scientifically invalid and utterly dishonest. Too bad the interviewer who had been given the questions by denialists didn't understand the science enough to see he was being used as a pawn.

Does this look like it isn't warming?

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just.

I might remind you again that THIS ARTICLE discusses specifically THAT POINT. And you, just like the denialist blogs, have intentionally omitted all of the rest of what Jones said that provided the context. Read MY ARTICLE ABOVE (the one you didn't read before pasting your cut and paste from some blog into a comment box). Seriously, your comment has already been shown to be fallacious, specious, and dishonest.

In addition, has ANY scientist EVER answered the following question: IF Cap-and-Trade is implemented and works 100% as hoped, and results in a 20% decrease in carbon emissions by 2020, what will be the effect? Will it reverse global warming; will it stop global warming; will it even significantly slow global warming? If it merely means that the earth will warm 0.9 degrees instead 0f 1.0 degrees over the next 40 years, why bother and destroy our economy in the process?

Cap-and-trade is just one policy option. Scientists leave the policy options for people who make policy. Scientists do science. Go figure. In any case, the economists and scientists working together in the last IPCC report did evaluate the effects of reducing carbon emissions. You can read it in the IPCC reports. WGIII specifically looks at mitigation.

And by the way, our economy got destroyed already by folks like denialists who are standing in the way of American innovation and ingenuity, pushing American jobs overseas, sending billions of dollars to petrostates who fund terrorists, and give a leg up to communist China and other countries. It is the denialists who won't let our economy recovery, won't let us build a new sustainable energy infrastructure, won't let us keep jobs right here in America.

Meanwhile, despite the denialists who insist on holding America back, Green Businesses Now Generate More Revenue Than the Aerospace and Defense Sectors Combined.

Maybe you can think about that after you actually read THIS ARTICLE.

Sorry, but have been unable to find an answer relating to the effects of Cap-and-Trade (our BIG policy issue) on global warming. Maybe you can show me where scientists (even one) say what they expect to happen if it all goes perfectly and we cut carbon emissions 20% by 2020. Just couldn't find an answer to that question in the IPCC report or anywhere else.

As for, "our economy got destroyed already by folks like denialists who are standing in the way of American innovation and ingenuity", I'm thinking you have denialists confused with environmentalists who fought against nuclear power and other policies that would have helped keep business in America.

Just for the record, I believe the earth is warming, I just don't know how much man is contributing to it; and I certainly question the effectiveness (other than to advance socialist redistribution of wealth policies) of Cap-and-Trade.

Luckily there are people who actually study the science who do know these things.

As for China, how much progress do you think we're making while the denialists keep ANY policy from moving forward?

I know there are people who study these things. I'd just like one of them to tell us what they think the effects will be if Cap-and-Trade goes 100% according to plan. Like I said, I have NEVER seen a scientist address this issue, and I do think it's kinda important.

As for China, maybe one reason they are killing us economically is because they don't have all the environmental regulations blocking their production.

Read the report. Read the independent analyses of the various cap-and-trade bills.

As for China, certainly they need to work on their environmental problems, as does the US still, but to say they have don't have any environmental regulations is to suggest you don't know anything about their extensive environmental regulations. They, like the US, have enforcement issues, and they got a much later start than we did and have a lot worse problems than we do. But they are increasingly trying to deal with it.

And China has an authoritarian style of government that allows them to make decisions much faster than the US, where we argue about things based almost entirely on what impact it might have on the next election.

But China has also realized the importance of energy to their future and is working hard to develop sustainable technologies like wind and solar energy. Meanwhile, the denialist goal is to stop all efforts to develop these technologies as a nation.

The denialists' actions are ensuring the rise of China and India, the loss of American jobs, and the continued support of terrorists that hate us. And that is on top of delaying any effort to stop the unprecedented warming of our planet.

I wonder what the denialists tell their grandchildren.

So when someone answers a question, thats not his real answer??

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

A: Yes, but only just.

So the answer is there has been no warming in these 15 years Period, according to him.

Whats to interpret? When is an answer simply an answer?

Please read the article on which you are commenting. Yes, THIS article. It has as it's focus this exact question. Yep. THIS article. The one you posted your pre-prepared comment to without even reading the answer that is already written.

Have a nice day.

Gee David, are you not having a Green day?

My remark was not pre-prepared otherwise it would be on other such articles and maybe...just maybe you don't comprehend my remark.

So i'll type slowly now...When you claim denialist are "making up" a quote because he didn't say those words of the question only answered in the affermative doesn't that mean he in effect says that?

You do have to admit that with it snowing a whole lot it's kinda hard to sell this to someone shoveling plus it's funny.

I am wondering David, in your world do you feel the denialist are increasing in size? or are they being better funded by some group? Do you think there is some planned and calculated response?

Hope you have a good day too.

Gee David, are you not having a Green day?

Meaning?

My remark was not pre-prepared otherwise it would be on other such articles and maybe...just maybe you don't comprehend my remark.

I comprehended your remark, and your intent. What I don't comprehend is why you didn't read the article before leaving a comment that was already addressed in depth in the article.

So i'll type slowly now...

Okay, I'll read slowly too if you think that will make your comment make more sense.

When you claim denialist are "making up" a quote because he didn't say those words of the question only answered in the affermative doesn't that mean he in effect says that?

Come on. You can't believe your own gymnastics with that rationalization of an intentional deceit by denialists. They made up a quote, even put quote marks around it to make it look like he said exactly that which was shown to be a quote. That's how quotes work. You see quote marks it means that is exactly what the person said. Jones never said that.

Furthermore, the quote and the entire gist of the denialist articles are intentionally designed to misrepresent what Jones said. They carefully ignore 90% of the context that explains his full meaning, and cherry pick the piece that they like, then give it their own interpretation that they know is not the meaning Jones presented. That is intentional dishonesty.

You do have to admit that with it snowing a whole lot it's kinda hard to sell this to someone shoveling plus it's funny.

Why? Does the sun not exist because it's dark at night? Does the summer not exist because it's cold in the winter? It's winter!! It snows in winter. It sometimes snows a lot in winter. And guess what, with warmer oceans and warmer atmosphere it will likely snow a lot more in winter (you know, that whole "water falling from the sky" thing). The more water in the air, which is what happens when the air is warmer and the oceans that feed the air are warmer, means a greater likelihood of precipitation. When the temperature is below freezing, that means snow. Did I say that it is winter! And that it snows in winter!

Please.

I am wondering David, in your world do you feel the denialist are increasing in size?or are they being better funded by some group? Do you think there is some planned and calculated response?

I assume these are rhetorical questions like your original one.

David, you seem very tense...relax a little please

You've clearly lost any sense of humor but thanks for your explaination of snow!
So those warmer temps in the ocean and atmosphere would explain the increase in hurricanes and rain that we....ummm...didn't get?
but thanks for explaining snow to me!

Actually those questions were not rhetorical, yes they are on a different tangent but i was interested in what you thought about the rising turn of opinion about global warming...are there more of us deniers? or are we just louder? do you think there is a planned counter attack? I was just wondering what you think about that.

David, you seem very tense...relax a little please

So, you agree with dishonesty?

I disagree with man made warming

Perhaps this can help with your confusion.

I'm not confused David.

Well, if you're not confused, and you "disagree" with the entire body of climate science going back more than a half a century of research by thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of studies, then that would make you?

Oh, and to be fair, putting quotes around the question asked and calling it a quote from him is not right, and not required since he did answer yes no matter how much wiggling he tried to do.

They intentionally created a lie by removing 99% of the meaning of his response, thus now putting out on the blogosphere a storyline that is absolutely false. Even if they had presented his exact "Yes, but only just" and nothing else it would have been intentionally creating a falsehood by leaving out the entire rest of his explanation.

Keep in mind that many denialists are claiming that Jones said it didn't get warmer. That is entirely false. The slightly less dishonest ones are claiming that Jones said it didn't get statistically significantly warmer. But here they know that virtually none of the public understands "statistical significance" and will read it exactly as the denialists intend them to read it - incorrectly.

The point is that denialists intentionally are claiming something that is not true, is not relevant, and is based on cherry picked data designed specifically to create the confused understanding of the public to give the impression that Jones said exactly opposite of what he said and exactly opposite of what all the science says.

That is absolutely, unequivocally, and intentionally dishonest.

And it helps even more American jobs to be sent to China. It's beyond me how the denialists don't seem to care about our country.

Posted at Climate Progress

Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia provide this response to the way the Guardian misrepresented his statements in an earlier interview.

You'll notice that most of the people offering their "insights" into this interview will actually link (if at all) NOT to the BBC page, but to the WUWT "annotated" version of the page or to the Daily Mail article. The "annotated" version, of course, is done specifically so they can apply their own intentional misinterpretation to Jones' answers. The Daily Mail article is so patently false in almost all of its contentions that any real journalist that works for that instrument should immediately file a suit for fraud.

I'll write more on this as I get some time.

Jones: I must clarify my clarification of my clarification

As you know, because I have already explained this to you, Jones is correcting the intentional misrepresentation by the Guardian of his statements.

Or would you prefer that newspapers and denialist blogs be allowed to just make stuff up whenever they feel like it? I'm sure you wouldn't support such dishonesty in your own businesses or your communication with your family, so why do you condone the lies the denialists say about climate science?

Is it because you want American jobs to go to communist China, because that is exactly what the denialists are causing? Is it because you want us to continue to send money to petrostates who give it to terrorists who hate us, because that is exactly what the denialists are supporting?

Seems to me the global warmist scientist keep having to clarify their own words, from interviews and emails and now that real questions are being asked of them, they are kinda short on answers and long on parsing words and explainations of answers.

You obviously believe differently David, you believe in the science even though some errors have been finally exposed, makes me wonder what other errors might exist that we have not found out yet.

Or should i say data that hasn't been fully vetted yet?

I'm wondering what jobs are going overseas? Supposed green jobs? No one seems to want wind farms in their backyards, where are the solar farms?

What of the real jobs that are being/will be lost, exploring for oil here, drilling for that oil, processing that oil, building nuclear plants, mining for coal.

Seems to me the global warmist scientist keep having to clarify their own words,

Scientists don't have to clarify their own words. They have to correct the lies the denialists tell.

they are kinda short on answers and long on parsing words and explainations of answers.

Are there too many words for you to understand? Is it easier just to make something up, say a quote that was never said, that is a lie?

That's what denialists do. Guess it's easier to talk when you deal in meaningless bumper stickers.

Sorry, but your comments are repeating themselves. Since this has been explained to you many times, there are two options - either you are incapable of understanding or you choose not to understand.

Which is it?

By the way, thanks for the points.

Michael Mann responds to the false and misleading claims in the error-laden WSJ piece.

A must-read Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Al Gore on Global Warming!

Make sure to read the links also.

Here is some additional interpretation and further links on Gore's piece.

What we know about climate change

I found this fascinating audio interview of Dr. Michael Mann by author, journalistic and blogger Chris Mooney.

How climate denialists manufacture scandals by lying

Well, the media finally gets it right. On Tuesday the Chicago Tribune published a Q&A on the state of climate science, and actually reported it accurately.

See the Q&A here.

Another journalist finally gets it right.

Science the victim of dishonest attacks

More on how the denialists absolutely lied about what Jones said.

The original comment in this thread has been deleted by its author.

Note that there are several of these placeholders inserted by Gather throughout the comment string above. All of them are for comments removed by the original commenter, Barb M (when she isn't using one of her aliases), and not by me. They were removed many weeks after the initial posting, in part because the commenter had been reprimanded by Gather for abusive commenting and posting habits to other members.

Needless to say we all need to act like adults and work most disagreements out for ourselves - Gather management is not, and can not, be responsible for policying every ideological of obnoxiousness difference we have - but no one on Gather should have to put up with abusive and harassing practices. From recent observation it appears some people still don't quite get it. The recourse is to simply not patronize those posts nor respond to those comments by members who have shown themselves to be abusive. Should the abuse continue despite best efforts to ignore it, then it should be reported as violation of Gather TOS, oftimes also of the law, and most certainly of common human decency.

My apologies for any confusion the removed comments may have caused in reviewing the full comment string.

Phil Jones was Wrong - according to Tamino, the warming IS statistically significant.

Phil Jones - The planet has significantly warmed over the last 16 years.

Unlike those who dishonestly and intentionally misrepresent the facts, the planet has continued to warm over the last several decades. As Phil Jones noted when asked a denialist-distorted question a year ago, the planet had warmed at a 90% significance level from the denialist cherry picked period of 1995 to 2010. Of course, 90% significance is pretty certain, but scientists tend to be very conservative and usually insist on 95% significance before saying the result is "statistically significant." Needless to say the denialist industry intentionally misrepresented that statement and lied about what Phil Jones said. To suggest that the planet has not warmed because it met only the 90% significance level is blatantly dishonest.

Now we have another year of data, and given that 2010 was tied for the hottest year on record, it's not surprising that the warming has surpassed even the 95% level. So now even the blatantly dishonest cannot lie any more about the meaning of the data.

It should be noted also that it is simply idiotic to suggest that there is an absolute linear correlation on a short-term basis between CO2 levels and temperature. There are many short-term phenomena (e.g., El Nino, La Nina, AO, etc.) that create short-term variation that can mask the long-term trend. It would be like saying that June 2nd must be hotter than June 1st, that June 3rd must be hotter than June 2nd, that June 4th must be hotter than June 3rd, etc., without taking into consideration the fact that there are weather fronts, rain systems, high and low pressure areas, etc. that significantly effect the day to day weather. The same is true for climate - short-term phenomena significantly effect the year to year variability in basic climate metrics. But the long-term trend has absolutely and unequivocally been upward for decades. Including during the period of time about which the denialists lied.

To suggest otherwise is to be either completely ignorant of the science or intentionally deceptive. Or both.