The IPCC must strike out all references to Professor Jones work

Now that the University of East Anglia has stood aside Professor Jones, it is imperative that the IPCC cease referring to his work.
Professor Jones, the “father of global warming” is the single most influential pro-IPCC climate scientist. On that there can be little argument.
The entire IPCC position is in tatters.

7 thoughts on “The IPCC must strike out all references to Professor Jones work”

  1. Phil Jones is down. Let’s see who else is fond of lying with statistics using “filter end effects”.

    “Applying the correction in real time in the future will mean that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last 15 years data – because of the filter end effects. Best would seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !).” – Phil Jones, former director of the CRU (www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=116&filename=929044085.txt).

    Grant Foster (Tamino) appears in 18 Climategate e-mails. His is also fond of “filter end effects”.

    Awaiting moderation on Grant’s site is my finally valid destruction (i49.tinypic.com/24cfeas.jpg) of his “filter end effects” Hockey Stick that tortures the longest thermometer record into supporting AGW:

    tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/

    NikFromNYC // December 1, 2009 at 7:10 am | Reply

    I don’t need homework to BELIEVE MY EYES: the raw data plot does not support his claim. His smoothing doesn’t follow the peaks except at the ends. I have done more homework and with a bit of help from John Ray I have reproduced Tamino’s work from raw data. The two graphs used to prove his point show the opposite of what honest analysis shows. Not knowing how the black box works didn’t stop me from using sample data to see how setting the big knob on top to its lowest setting effects its behavior:

    antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/central-england-temperature-series-very.html

    Using Savitzky-Golay smoothing of higher order confirms my point since the filter then follows peaks in the middle instead of hides them:

    i48.tinypic.com/28jkvnm.jpg

    Print the raw data plot and ask a kid to trace it with a big red marker to see if he comes up with a Hockey Stick. I can’t. Can you?!

    Not one of the 280 comments mentioned the term “end effect”. Computers were not very fast in 1964 so Savitzky and Golay at Perkin-Elmer who makes spectrometers had to figure out a way to smooth noisy spectra without much computing power. Their paper became one of the top sited of all time. From David I. Wilson’s “The Black Art of Smoothing”: “The SG filters suffer from end effects, but requires minimal storage.”

    Overwhelming evidence may support AGW, but honest analysis shows that the longest running thermometer record does not.

  2. Where are the raw data? Destroeyd or phantasy?
    If Phil Jones or CRU cannot present the raw data because these raw data do not exist right now, those data do not exist. It is that simple. No data, no science! So Phil Jones’ publications are based on non existing data. All the works of his companions relying on these non existent data are meaningless now (They will thank him – I am sure). Phil Jones destroyed the basis on which Kyoto and the IPCC rest – and all those computer models.

    Copenhagen will be like talking about the Mona Lisa on the basis of a photoshopped .jpeg file and nobody knowing the original because nobody has ever seen the original.

    It might be of interest, whether these data did ever exist or not, in total or partly. Phil Jones destroyed millions of British pounds which belong to the British people. Or perhaps they only existed in his phantasy.

    No government is (should be) allowed to make decisions on non existing data

  3. IPCC is contaminated from the top. Read these e-mails from teh CRU-files and all is evident that Dr. Pachauri is “in on the game”!

    From: \”Michael E. Mann\”
    To: \”Jim Salinger\” , Phil Jones , Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, \”Neville Nicholls\”
    Subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
    Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:05:47 -0400
    Cc: n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter.Whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Roger.Francey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David.Etheridge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ian.Smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Simon.Torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Willem.Bouma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rick.Bailey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Graeme.Pearman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

    Dear Jim,
    Thanks for your continued interest and help w/ all this. It’s nice to know that our friends
    down under are doing their best to fight the misinformation. It is true that the skeptics
    twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?
    There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch’s resignation as chief editor
    of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn’t have come at a better time. It was on the
    night before before the notorious \”James Inhofe\”, Chair of the Senate \”Environment and
    Public Works Committee\” attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David
    Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the usual
    myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, \”co2 is good for us\” and \”but water
    vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!\”).
    Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as
    Michaels, and it wasn’t too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the event did
    *not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats, conveniently, had
    received word of Hans’ resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not. So when,
    quite fittingly, Jim Jeffords (you may remember–he’s the U.S. senator who was in the news
    a couple years ago for tilting the balance of power back to the democrats when he left the
    republican party in protest) hit them with this news at the hearing, they were caught
    completely off guard. The \”Wall Street Journal\” article you cited was icing on the cake.
    Inhofe, who rails against the liberal media, will have a difficult time doing so against
    the WSJ!
    Also of interest to you (attached) might be the op-ed that Ray Bradley, Phil, and I have
    written and submitted to the \”Seattle News Tribune\” in response to an op-ed by Baliunas
    (also attached) that some industry group has been sending around to various papers over the
    last week. Only two (Providence Journal and Seattle NT) have thusfar bitten…
    There is a rumour that Harvard may have had enough w/ their name being dragged through the
    mud by the activities of Baliunas and Soon, and that \”something is up\”. Baliunas and Soon,
    as alluded to in the WSJ article, are now no longer talking to the media. Will keep you
    posted on that…
    mike
    At 03:58 PM 8/4/2003 +1200, Jim Salinger wrote:

    Dear Mike et al
    I also share Neville’s thanks to you all for the reasoned and evaluated responses over
    the last few months. They have been good, and separated out ‘academic standards’
    from ‘academic freedom’, which we have to be careful not to abuse.
    I also note the following, come through over the weekend from the Wall Street Journal
    (below) and would also compliment those of you who, with Hans Von Storch resigned
    your editorships when information that should be published was clearly supressed.
    If you have further information that you feel free to share on last week’s events then
    we
    in New Zealand would appreciate hearing it, as we have been extremely concerned
    about academic standards in the reviewing of articles from New Zealand sources.
    Again thanks to all on your stands.
    Best regards
    Jim
    >>>>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *