BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Evidence for Multiverses
Next: The mafia
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 17:02 On 2/13/10 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf > > --Mike Jr. Your paper makes claims contradicted by other sources. This happens all the time, and should send you scurrying to find out why the contradiction. That leads to scrutinizing the authors and there sources, taking a look at the volume of independent pieces of evidence, and asking why climatologists are coming to the conclusions that they do and based on what different kinds of data. I would like you to look at: Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change http://hfranzen.org/ http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 17:08 On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... >> >>> --Mike Jr. >> >> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. >> >> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf > > Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the work cited in the paper: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf > References > Fr�lich, C. 2006: Solar irradiance variability since 1978. Space Science Rev., 248, 672-673. > Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate > impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966. > 8 > Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. > Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372. > Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature > change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022. > Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. > Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. > Res., 106, 23947-23963. > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global > temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293. > Hansen, J. 2009: �Storms of My Grandchildren.� Bloomsbury USA, New York. (304 pp.) > > --Mike Jr.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 17:09 On 2/13/10 10:47 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Feb 13, 11:39 am, Rich<n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> Mike Jr<n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:7b34fc3f-2bd5-4362-935c- >> 9ed13c766...(a)y7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com: >> >>> Talk about a come to Jesus/Moses/Mohamed/Gautama/Gaia moment. >> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm >> >>> --Mike Jr. >> >> He's a liar and a con-man. > > Add to that that Jones is scared, which is usually when someone feels > the need to face their maker. Even when they believe that maker is > 13.5 billion years of evolution. > > --Mike Jr. You are ignoring the death threats, Mike!
From: Peter Webb on 13 Feb 2010 20:01 "Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:2ocdn5l2fadkh91nd9fh6pp304n3ll5ua1(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:00:06 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>Yes, he did say they were comparable, and actually provided the warming >>figures for the various periods which show a greater warming rate 1860 to >>1880 than from 1975 to 2009. These were his figures, freely given, in >>writing, and included in full in the article. > > Yes, that's what he said. It's just not what you reported he said in > your last post. Funny, you snipped what I said, so nobody can check your claim. To save people finfing the post themselves, here is what I said: "The temperature increased from 1975 to 2009 at a slower rate than it did1860 - 1880, when anthropogenic CO2 was miniscule, and at about the same rate as from 1910 to 1940." Phil Jones actually provided the figures for each of these periods. But you also snipped the link to what Phil Jones said! Its like you don't want people to read what the head of the CRU said about AGW ! So here is the link again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm So now, this post contains what I said, and what Phil Jones said, so people can check for themselves! Its funny, you snipping out the link so people can't check what Phil Jones said! ROFL. Now you don't want people listening to what influential pro-AGW scientists think about AGW either! > > The rest of the stuff you've misreported as well. But no actual example. And of course, as you snipped both what I said in my post and the link to what Phil Jones said, you obviously don't want people checking this for themselves. > I guess we'll just add > reading comprehension to the growing list of your missing intellectual > tools. Unfortunately, this is more mainstream Peterson; no science content; ad-hominem attack; pure crank. It is Phil Jones who you should be launching ad-hominem attacks against. Apparently he thinks the world has cooled since 2002, and whilst he is certain the earth is warming he is not certain it has anything to do with man. You can read all about it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Better be quick. Peterson will presumably snip this as well; he is a bit of an ostrich. > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com Hey, Peterson, do you agree with what Phil Jones, head of the East Angle CRU and one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, said about AGW here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm If not, why not tell us how your opinions differ from those of the great Dr Phil Jones? ROFL
From: Peter Webb on 13 Feb 2010 20:04
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:JqadnXLlYeFZv-rWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > >>> >>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... >>> >>>> --Mike Jr. >>> >>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. >>> >>> Thoroughly refuted >>> here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf >> >> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . > > What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? For me, it is the fact that scientifically none of his predictions seem to do better than chance. Its pretty much the same objection that I have to astrologers, numerologists, and phrenologists. |