2011-06-11 02:11:38Phil Jones...
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

This just popped up on the BBC web site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

2011-06-11 03:53:45Does every BBC article about Phil Jones...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

include the phrase, "Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair" in its sbutitle?

2011-06-11 03:59:53Heh
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I believe Phil officially and legally appended that to his name...

2011-06-11 04:02:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

No surprise, although it will be to some.  I wonder if Black is at all curious how they (Lindzen and Motl) arrived at 1995-- that is the real story here IMO.  That is, how a prominent climate skeptic from MIT essentially engaged in data manipulation and cherry-picking.  That critical part of the story has not been documented by the media.

2011-06-11 04:03:07
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

That's:  Dr. Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair, PhD

2011-06-11 04:05:55Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

Perhaps you should author a "Here's the rest of the story" blog post?

2011-06-11 04:09:28
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Remember to include info from Tamino's "Phil Jones was Wrong" post

2011-06-11 07:16:16Rest of the story
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229
There is cognitive research that shows that the most effective way to debunk misinformation is to provide an alternative narrative. Misinformation is notoriously hard to dislodge so you need to replace it with a different story (remembering that people think in stories, not abstract concepts). So in this case, the alternate narrative is Lindzen and Motl devising their gotcha question as yet another attack on climate science designed to mislead and confuse. I'd characterize it as the climate equivalent of "do you still beat your wife?"

SkS don't use this narrative in our debunk so this could do with a revisit. Ideally, you explain the science while giving the narrative at the same time.

2011-06-11 09:32:04Basically what I'm saying is...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

If anyone wants to do a blog post using this latest Phil Jones news to provide a history of the infamous question and explain the science also, we'll also use the blog post as an updated rebuttal.

2011-06-13 03:07:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I would do a post, but right now I am eworking a sorter work week and have some deadlines to meet.  Otherwise I would do it.  I am happy to review and provide input.  But IMHO, we need to strike while the BBC still has the Jones piece front and centre, or while it is at least fresh in peoples' minds.

If I may make a brazen request?  Whoever does this, I beg of you to please include Lindzen's email to Watts here,

"Yesterday, in response to the thread on “3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade” I got a short note from MIT’s Richard Lindzen along with a graph. I asked if I could post it, and he graciously agreed:

Look at the attached.  There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.  Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?  (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,

Dick

==================================================
  Richard S. Lindzen
  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
  MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA"

[from here:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/]

 

Here are some relevant DC links:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/16/morano-sends-lies-from-uk-times-and-daily-mail-around-the-world/

http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/

2011-06-13 03:32:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.102.37

I might have time to throw something together on this later today.  Seems like it should be pretty quick to write.  One question though - is there any evidence that Lindzen/Motl directly supplied the question to the BBC reporter, or is it just assumed they were the source of the question since they had previously written posts/emails with the 1995 starting point cherrypick?

2011-06-13 03:34:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Just some more thoughts off the top of my head.  Maybe the Lindzen email can be in a highlighted a coloured text box at the top of the post and the narrative can go from there.

Also, this widget (below) featured at Gareth's site is suseful for showing how one can manipulate the data to minimize warming or maximize cooling.  It also nicely shows how the noise is taken care off when one uses appropriate time durations to calc. the trends.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/keep-out-of-the-kitchen/

2011-06-13 04:42:31draft
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.102.37

I got a draft put together - just had enough time, but now we're off to a lunch and softball game with my wife's office.  Have a look and let me know what you think.  I quoted the Lindzen email, but didn't focus specifically on him.

2011-06-13 05:04:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  Peter Sinclair had some information on Lubos Motl on this issue.  

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/03/15/flogging-the-scientists/

2011-06-13 05:27:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Great Dana...I'll have a look when I get a chance.  IMMHO, we really ought to stick it to Lindzen here...he was advising Watts how to manipulate and cherry-pick the data to arrive at the desired result...no warming.  So this email clearly demonstrates a conscious effort to mislead people.  I would go so far as to so for someone of Lindzen's stature, it amounts to scientific misconduct.