Professor Phil Jones exonerated.

[Doggy Styles]

I think AtW is on a forum holiday from a drivel board. Out of 18496 posts, only 25 have been non-drivel.

I must have been on holiday and missed them.

[BlasterBates]

What is interesting that although there is "overwhelming evidence" of AGW, that most meteorologists don't believe it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/2...ostly-natural/

Why is that the most informed group on weather and climate mainly don't believe it?

Was it the record cold temps in Siberia? The extra million square metres of ice (you know trend turned round, takes time for the ice to get back to where it was) ?

[TheBigYinJames]

What is interesting that although there is "overwhelming evidence" of AGW, that most meteorologists don't believe it.
Why is that the most informed group on weather and climate mainly don't believe it?

Most real scientists don't believe it, (the Institute on Physics has to reprimand them for sloppy scientific method in not getting their stuff properly per-reviewed) but aren't going to scupper anyone else's research grants.

The really good thing about AGW being untrue is that we 'deniers' just have to wait. They don't ever admit they were wrong, lying on their deathbeds 40 years from now, but they will know it.

[meridian]

<snip> Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

Erm, isn't disclosing data and methodologies what peer review is? So your work can be checked, double-checked, and yes, even undermined? If your work is strong enough then it should be able to take the cross-examination.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.

Ahh, the old "everybody else in climate science (but not other sciences) does it so it's okay" excuse....

[pjclarke]

Why is that the most informed group on weather and climate mainly don't believe it?

Not a reality-based statement: From the original

....Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather .

The reasons behind the divergence in views are complex. The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”

Resentment may also play a role in the divide. Climatologists are almost always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a doctoral degree is required. Most meteorologists, however, can get jobs as weather forecasters with a college degree.

Oh and BTW ... "NEW YORK -- NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen has been chosen by his peers to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society."

Odd move for a bunch of 'non-believers'?

[pjclarke]

If your work is strong enough then it should be able to take the cross-examination.

I can only suggest you read the report, The VC of the University stated

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators ... May I also point out that it is not a national archive, it is not a library, it is a research unit. It has no special duty to conserve and its data is the copy of data provided by over 150 countries,”

while Professor Jones told the Committee

The CRU dataset, which forms the land surface component of the HadCRUT global temperature record, was compiled with the aim of comprehensiveness. The majority of the data in it are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA. However, it also includes data derived from station data that were obtained directly from countries, institutions and scientists on the understanding that they would not be passed on.

and the Committee noted that the complaint about non-repeatability

...has substance if one considers CRU’s work in isolation. But science is more than individual researchers or research groups. One should put research in context and ask the question: what would one hope to find by double checking the processing of the raw data? If this were the only dataset in existence, and Professor Jones’s team had been the only team in the world to analyse it, then it might make sense to double check independently the processing of the raw data and the methods. But there are other datasets and other analyses that have been carried out as Professor Jones explained

which led to para 50 of the report

The fact that all the datasets show broadly the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today was why Professor John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, had the confidence to say that human induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis, “unchallengeable”

"I think in terms of datasets, of the way in which data is analysed, there will always be some degree of uncertainty but when you get a series of fundamentally different analyses on the basic data and they come up with similar conclusions, you get a [...] great deal of certainty coming out of it."

As always, read the references, especially the Report's sections on Transparency, Repeatability and Verification.

[BlasterBates]

hmm...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_519553.html

I get the impression that there's a sort of attitude, lets pat the climate scientists on the head, nod yeah yeah at their boring drivel, and get on with life as usual, you know build a few windmills to keep the tree huggers happy.

[TheBigYinJames]

hmm...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_519553.html

This is a single most compelling 'reason' why AGW is all about oil. If Govts were commited to reducing fossil fuel consumption why are they opening up new oilfields? (Alaska and Falklands) Truth is they are trying to reduce demand, and squeeze opec.

Same old tulip, different millennium.

[Spacecadet]

hmm...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_519553.html

I get the impression that there's a sort of attitude, lets pat the climate scientists on the head, nod yeah yeah at their boring drivel, and get on with life as usual, you know build a few windmills to keep the tree huggers happy.

and increase taxes

[Cliphead]

Plenty of so called evidence for AGW but not a single proof.

AGW is complete bollocks - prove me wrong.