BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Evidence for Multiverses
Next: The mafia
From: Jax on 14 Feb 2010 21:33 On Feb 14, 3:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Mike - Read Section > A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al. > "Hockey Stick" crurve) has proved to be incorrect. > > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Fac... > The other 2 articles provided swissre.com were fair representations of scientific studies. The section you referenced, A3, is not. If you are truly an unbiased reviewer, you should easily name 3 errors.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 22:06 "Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:vt2hn5thpjfbucnmf9ksseo9iel9lpthb6(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:33:46 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least >>they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an >>ad-hominem attack. > > There's not necessarily anything wrong with an ad-hominem attack. I call > you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot. What we should be > concerned with isn't ad hominem attacks themselves, but ad hominem > attacks that are used as an alternative to rational arguments. When you > pose a question, I answer it. Rationally. I'm not calling you an idiot > to dodge answering the question. The fact that you are an idiot is > totally separate from the discussion of facts and positions. > Yes, like I said, at least they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an ad-hominem attack like you just did. >>Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has >>anything to do with man. >>Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that >>it >>has anything to do with man. >> >>You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has >>anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring, >>but you are not. > You said you agreed with me, in fact, in that neither of us is certain that the warming is real or that it is caused by man. > What do you think "not certain" means? I am not certain that the Earth > is warming, and I'm not certain that man is responsible for that > uncertain warming. I am more than 99% confident that the Earth is > warming, and more than 99% certain that man is causing it. I don't know > what numerical confidence Jones would place on his own beliefs, but I > expect from the tone of his comments that they are well up there like > mine. I'd bet that if you asked him, he's also say that his "100%" > confidence that the Earth is warming is really just shorthand for > "99%+". > Funny, now you are inventing things you wish Jones had said. Normally you just invent things that you wish I had said. Jones is certain that the earth is warming. He is not certain it is anything to do with man. You are not certain that either the earth is warming or than man is responsible. You are clearly some kind of AGW-denier, probably working for a tobacco company or oil company. > You are, in fact, an idiot if you believe that "certain" and "not > certain" represent some sort of binary division of beliefs. You treat > "not certain" as if it means "doesn't believe", which is nonsense. > Hey, I'm just quoting what Jones said in writing to the BBC. He didn't mention whether he believed it or not, and neither did I, and you are apparently (again) inventing imaginary things that Jones did not in fact even discuss let alone say. >>Has the earth warmed since 2002? >> >>Jones: No, it has cooled. >>Petersen: No answer > > Both of your "quotes" are incorrect. Jones did not say the Earth has > cooled. Funny, again you snipped both what I said and what Phil said. But fear not! I went to the link you cust, and here is what Phil said: "C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling? No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant." Ie It has cooled at a rate of 0.12 degrees since 2002, according to Jones. See! Just snipping my posts doesn't actually change what is said! > He said that the trend from 2002 to the present is -0.12C per > decade, but that the time interval is too short for the trend to be > statistically significant. That is hugely different from "it has > cooled". How, exactly? If the trend line since 2002 is -0.12 degrees per decade, how is that not cooler? You know about negative numbers, right? > (Of course, it may actually turn out once enough data is > available that there was cooling; that doesn't mean that global warming > isn't both real and ongoing.) > Of course, as you are not certain either of these is correct anyway (unlike Phil Jones, who is certain the earth is warming), then another few years data is unlikely to convince you. > And I did provide a direct answer to your direct question, "I don't > think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way." > That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and is substantially similar to > Jones's answer, just in different words. > Funny, I wanted to know if you agreed with Jones words, not if you agreed with some diferent words that you wish he had said instead. >>I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are >>cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW. > > He certainly believes in AGW. He says so in the linked interview. He is > asked if it is reasonable based on the evidence to believe that global > warming isn't predominantly manmade, and explicitly says "no". No, he doesn't. Again, you are making up things that you wish Jones had said, and responding to them instead of what he actually did say. Much easier, or course, if you snip the link to the original interview, because its not obvious you are simply invernting things. Here is the link again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Here is what Jones actually said: "E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible? 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." >He is > asked if natural influences could have contributed significantly to > global warming, and he explicitly says that natural influences alone > should have produced cooling over the period where warming was observed. > When asked how confident he is that humans are mainly responsible for > global warming, he states that he agrees with the IPCC conclusion that > the evidence suggests that most warming in the last 50 years is the > result of human activity. But not that he is certain. He is not however certain that the earth is warming, just not that humans are involved. I provided his exact words above. > > You are certainly an idiot if you don't recognize that these answers > mean he "believes" in AGW in the sense that any intellectually honest > person "believes" in anything: considering it likely based on the > available evidence. > _________________________________________________ > Dunno. He doesn't actually say that. He does say he is certain that the earth is warming, but refused to say he was certain man had anything to do with it. > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 22:36 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b78ba56$0$18229$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:vt2hn5thpjfbucnmf9ksseo9iel9lpthb6(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:33:46 +1100, "Peter Webb" >> <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >>>Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least >>>they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an >>>ad-hominem attack. >> >> There's not necessarily anything wrong with an ad-hominem attack. I call >> you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot. What we should be >> concerned with isn't ad hominem attacks themselves, but ad hominem >> attacks that are used as an alternative to rational arguments. When you >> pose a question, I answer it. Rationally. I'm not calling you an idiot >> to dodge answering the question. The fact that you are an idiot is >> totally separate from the discussion of facts and positions. >> > > Yes, like I said, at least they got straight answers from Phil, and he > didn't just launch into an ad-hominem attack like you just did. > > >>>Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has >>>anything to do with man. >>>Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that >>>it >>>has anything to do with man. >>> >>>You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has >>>anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is >>>occuring, >>>but you are not. >> > > You said you agreed with me, in fact, in that neither of us is certain > that the warming is real or that it is caused by man. > > > >> What do you think "not certain" means? I am not certain that the Earth >> is warming, and I'm not certain that man is responsible for that >> uncertain warming. I am more than 99% confident that the Earth is >> warming, and more than 99% certain that man is causing it. I don't know >> what numerical confidence Jones would place on his own beliefs, but I >> expect from the tone of his comments that they are well up there like >> mine. I'd bet that if you asked him, he's also say that his "100%" >> confidence that the Earth is warming is really just shorthand for >> "99%+". >> > > Funny, now you are inventing things you wish Jones had said. Normally you > just invent things that you wish I had said. > > Jones is certain that the earth is warming. He is not certain it is > anything to do with man. > You are not certain that either the earth is warming or than man is > responsible. > > You are clearly some kind of AGW-denier, probably working for a tobacco > company or oil company. > > > >> You are, in fact, an idiot if you believe that "certain" and "not >> certain" represent some sort of binary division of beliefs. You treat >> "not certain" as if it means "doesn't believe", which is nonsense. >> > > Hey, I'm just quoting what Jones said in writing to the BBC. He didn't > mention whether he believed it or not, and neither did I, and you are > apparently (again) inventing imaginary things that Jones did not in fact > even discuss let alone say. > > > >>>Has the earth warmed since 2002? >>> >>>Jones: No, it has cooled. >>>Petersen: No answer >> >> Both of your "quotes" are incorrect. Jones did not say the Earth has >> cooled. > > Funny, again you snipped both what I said and what Phil said. But fear > not! I went to the link you cust, and here is what Phil said: > > "C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been > statistically significant global cooling? > > No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is > negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically > significant." > > Ie It has cooled at a rate of 0.12 degrees since 2002, according to Jones. > > See! Just snipping my posts doesn't actually change what is said! > > >> He said that the trend from 2002 to the present is -0.12C per >> decade, but that the time interval is too short for the trend to be >> statistically significant. That is hugely different from "it has >> cooled". > > How, exactly? If the trend line since 2002 is -0.12 degrees per decade, > how is that not cooler? > > You know about negative numbers, right? > > >> (Of course, it may actually turn out once enough data is >> available that there was cooling; that doesn't mean that global warming >> isn't both real and ongoing.) >> > > Of course, as you are not certain either of these is correct anyway > (unlike Phil Jones, who is certain the earth is warming), then another few > years data is unlikely to convince you. > > >> And I did provide a direct answer to your direct question, "I don't >> think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way." >> That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and is substantially similar to >> Jones's answer, just in different words. >> > > Funny, I wanted to know if you agreed with Jones words, not if you agreed > with some diferent words that you wish he had said instead. > > >>>I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are >>>cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW. >> >> He certainly believes in AGW. He says so in the linked interview. He is >> asked if it is reasonable based on the evidence to believe that global >> warming isn't predominantly manmade, and explicitly says "no". > > No, he doesn't. > > Again, you are making up things that you wish Jones had said, and > responding to them instead of what he actually did say. Much easier, or > course, if you snip the link to the original interview, because its not > obvious you are simply invernting things. > > Here is the link again: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm > > Here is what Jones actually said: > > "E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans > are mainly responsible? > > 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." > > >>He is >> asked if natural influences could have contributed significantly to >> global warming, and he explicitly says that natural influences alone >> should have produced cooling over the period where warming was observed. >> When asked how confident he is that humans are mainly responsible for >> global warming, he states that he agrees with the IPCC conclusion that >> the evidence suggests that most warming in the last 50 years is the >> result of human activity. > > But not that he is certain. He is not however certain that the earth is > warming, just not that humans are involved. > > I provided his exact words above. > > >> >> You are certainly an idiot if you don't recognize that these answers >> mean he "believes" in AGW in the sense that any intellectually honest >> person "believes" in anything: considering it likely based on the >> available evidence. >> _________________________________________________ >> > > > Dunno. He doesn't actually say that. He does say he is certain that the > earth is warming, but refused to say he was certain man had anything to do > with it. > Whoops, sorry, he is not even "confident" that man has anything to with global warming. > > >> Chris L Peterson >> Cloudbait Observatory >> http://www.cloudbait.com >
From: Chris L Peterson on 14 Feb 2010 22:43 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:06:38 +1100, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >I provided his exact words above. Yet you lack the wits to understand them. A weakness that explains your lack of comprehension of any subject you have discussed in this forum. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 23:02
"Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:sighn5df0f9ak5knmgv0m6r71ojsqui9ni(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:06:38 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>I provided his exact words above. > > Yet you lack the wits to understand them. A weakness that explains your > lack of comprehension of any subject you have discussed in this forum. > _________________________________________________ > Hey, Peterson, just because Phil Jones is not convinced that man has anything to do with global warming is no reason to snip his exact words. Here they are again: "E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible? 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." Here is the link again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Are you confident the climate has warmed? Are you confident that man is responsible (unlike Phil Jones)? Hey, why don't you snip all this and just launch into some ad-hominem attack against Phil Jones? I am, after all, just reporting what he said; nothing to do with me! > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com |