Jones Has Conceded a Little, but He Remains Unwilling to Take a More Objective View of Climate Science
One notable aspect of Phil Jones’ responses to the BBC (see BBC news article and Q&As) was the fact that the BBC actually asked some probing questions and Jones actually answered them. But of more significance was that although he was willing to admit some of the more obvious unresolved questions concerning the AGW/warmist position (such as whether the 1975-98 warming is unprecedented, whether global temperatures have been declining recently, and whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer), he remains unwilling to take a broader and more objective view of climate science despite having had ample time to contemplate all that has transpired. In this his views may be representative of many of the committed warmists central to the preparation of the IPCC reports but certainly is not the objective viewpoint that EPA and others should insist on in making multi-trillion dollar regulatory decisions. In particular:
- (1) Jones admits that the 1975-98 warming as measured by HadCRUT is similar to earlier warming periods. This is obvious but it is significant that someone so close to the IPCC is willing to admit it given that warmists have so strongly emphasized how unprecedented warming was during this period. He is anxious to point out, however, the extremely recent increase in satellite-measured temperatures, but is unwilling to also consider the implications of the 1978-97 satellite temperature data. This strongly suggests that the global temperature changes prior to 1998 may have been due to natural oscillations related to El Nino (see here). This is a one-sided rather than the objective approach that is more likely to lead to good science and balanced conclusions.
(2) Jones appears to be unable or unwilling to think outside of the framework of the IPCC view of what influences climate. His view that the warming must be man-made unless solar or volcanic forcing can be shown ignores all the research on the indirect effects of solar variability (such as the Svensmark hypothesis) as discussed in Section 2.5 of my Comments and the effects of oceanic climate oscillations (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) discussed in Section 2.4.
(3) Jones still appears to see nothing wrong with splicing instrumental data on to tree-ring data without extreme care to alert readers to this. This is extraordinary, even if some group asked him to do it, since this does not allow readers to reach reasonable conclusions as to the usefulness of the tree ring data (and hence the claims made on the basis of it), which is so inconsistent with recent instrumental data.
a couple of the remarks folks put up are silly and unrelated, occasionally i ask myself if they in reality study the article content and items prior to leaving your 2 cents or if perhaps they actually skim the title of the publish and pen the extremely very first issue that pops into their brain. in any case, it’s enjoyable to browse smart commentary from time to time rather than the quite identical, outdated blog vomit which i very usually discover on the net
I thought that was extremeley helpful. Thanks for the unusual content. I’ll keep checking back on this.
Jones strikes me as one who has dug a hole too deep. I’m sure that his ‘earlier’ work didn’t really prepare him for the scrutiny that he is now faced with. His subsequent work apears to be that of a scientist who has placed greater emphasis on his notariety than on his science. We all have an ego, some of us manage to remain grounded while others ‘go with the flow’. It strikes me that Jones has practiced ‘poor science’ more to maintain his ‘position in the climate science community’ than to further the critical assessment of the science itself. His lack of scientific method, wrt to the core data supporting his hypotheses, reflects a less than critical approach and can be likened to one who ‘feels’ he no longer needs the ‘proof’, he just needs to continue the storey. All scientists are lost once they start to ‘believe’ they are right and that they have a cause to champion.
Yes, I agree Prof. Jones has not done anything like come clean. The mere fact of the time of release of his interview, on a friday night, suggests that this is more about preserving a position than an attempt to redress past wrongs.
The significance of AGW to its political backers in terms of the old standbys money and power suggests their goal will not be easily let go. But there is another group, the religious believers who likely will be even more resistant to loss of their hope to establish a new garden of Eden on this sorry planet. I wonder if the recent spate of atheist books (Dawson, Hitchens) have led some to conclude they must take matters into their own hands. Finally for the scientists themselves fame, influence and self image as a white knight will hard to yield.
The entire basis of science is humility: before the data, and in willingness to let go of hypotheses which the data has disproved. Humility also says intrinsic self worth is related to neither success nor failure. I hope the Professor remembers this soon.
Jones strikes me as one who has dug a hole too deep. I’m sure that his ‘earlier’ work didn’t really prepare him for the scrutiny that he is now faced with. His subsequent work apears to be that of a scientist who has placed greater emphasis on his notariety than on his science. We all have an ego, some of us manage to remain grounded while others ‘go with the flow’. It strikes me that Jones has practiced ‘poor science’ more to maintain his ‘position in the climate science community’ than to further the critical assessment of the science itself. His lack of scientific method, wrt to the core data supporting his hypotheses, reflects a less than critical approach and can be likened to one who ‘feels’ he no longer needs the ‘proof’, he just needs to continue the storey. All scientists are lost once they start to ‘believe’ they are right and that they have a cause to champion.
I’m not entirely sure that more reflection will give Dr. Jones a more objective view of Climate Science…. or any of us, for that matter. The notion that “facts speak for themselves” is an illusion. Facts are always filtered through multiple, polarizing lenses that ultimately seem to give a coherent world view. The exact same facts can be used to support radically different views of reality… and the various approaches to those views can coalesce…. religion, politics, literature, economic advantage…. all can come together to support a particular vision of reality.
I suspect that Dr. Jones is conceding what he must and no more. I think very few of us could survive Saul’s experience on the road to Damascus. Cognitive dissonance is excruciating.