Phil Jones of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the guy who has been one of the leaders of the alarmism of the anthropogenic global warming crowd and in the forefront of the Climategate scandal, talked to the BBC recently about his problems, including sloppy record keeping. Now comes word that Jones can't reconcile some of the claims, including the famous "hockey stick graph" meant to show that the Medieval Warm Period didn't occur. From the Daily Mail, Jones:
...also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
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.
Isn't this unbelievable? Jones said more as well.
Here's what Jones had to say about the Medieval Warm Period [emphasis mine]:
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.[']
Despite the lack of data, AGW alarmists insist "the science is settled", even though any credible scientist with an iota of ethics wouldn't make such a claim without the evidence to back it up. Most of us know this already; unfortunately, there are too many people of power and influence (politicians, scientists, the Goreacle, leftists) with their political futures on the line who have made AGW a religion based on a false notion of "consensus". This allows those like embattled IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri (who is embroiled in his own scandals) and Al Gore make science a joke, much like another batch of scientists from the past century who said there was "consensus" about the truth of evolution based on the fraudulent Piltdown Man.
Worse, you have leftists and their ilk whining how the AGW skeptics are invalidly using the recent snowy and cold weather across the world to disprove a climate phenomenon. The irony is that those who worship the religion of AGW use the same weather to say that it does prove AGW, just like they have with the existence of individual hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such meteorological events (the really stupid believers add earthquakes and tsunamis as "proof" of AGW).
Here's how I see it. I have no way of knowing if the earth is actually warming or not, or what may be causing it if it is. But that's the point, nobody does. The earth may very well be warming, and there are a variety of factors causing it, including human activity. It is possible that any warming going on now could be greater than what occurred during the Medieval Warm Period. But there isn't nearly enough data that can be used as evidence proving any of this, including whether or not there is any global warming actually going on. And there is no way any proof exists justifying the trillions of dollars of our tax dollars various politicians would be happy to spend (with the exception of the politicians' own money, or that of the money from those considered "friends of theirs"), which would throw the rights of Americans, not to mention America's economy (as well as the economies of most countries), to the wind, in order to fund what is at best a battle against a completely unproven scientific theory, or fund what is at worst a criminal act.
But we already know this isn't really about science or climate; it's a scam being perpetrated by elitists who want to return to the days when similar individuals wanted to control the peasants. To put it with a bit of irony, the elitists want to return to the medieval period, even as they deny there was a Medieval Warm Period.
(Hat tip: Memeorandum)