Global warming ended in 1995, top climate scientist tells BBC

The former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia, admitted to the BBC last Saturday that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and that the world may have been warmer during medieval times.

In the interview (http://bit.ly/bv1fec), professor Phil Jones, a former lead author on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 assessment report and outspoken proponent of the man-made-global-warming theory, confessed to the following:

There was no statistically significant global warming from 1995 to 2009. (Although temperatures edged up at a rate of 0.12 Celsius per decade during that period, it was not significant, according to Jones.)

From January 2002 to the present, the earth has been cooling. (Jones said the temperature decline is “not statistically significant,” while failing to mention that the falling temperatures contradict the IPPC model, which forecast a temperature increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 800 to 1300 A.D., did exist, a scientifically accepted fact that Jones and other climate researchers tried to discount or hide. According to Jones: If the Medieval Warm Period “was shown to be global in extent and as warm as or warmer than today . . . then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented . . . .” (Jones, however, clings to the belief that the MWP may not have been global and may have affected only parts of the North America, the North Atlantic, Europe and parts of Asia.)

The warming rates for the periods 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998 “are not statistically significantly different.” In other words, none of these warm periods -- early and recent -- is exceptional or unusual. (Even if the recent warming had been "statistically significantly different," it would not implicate CO2 emissions as the cause.)

Jones’ Johnny-come-lately confession may shock fellow researchers still clinging desperately to the fast-disintegrating global warming theory, but skeptics who have been making the same declarations for years, and were ignored, are enjoying a “We told you” moment.

“They’ve finally admitted that the current warming period is similar to previous warming periods. Congratulations, we’ve known that for a long time,” says Michael Smith, a software engineer who played a key role in exposing the manipulation of global temperature data by NASA and NOAA.

Dr. Phil Kotzbach, a research scientist in Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science, says the professor’s statements are not particularly surprising.

“Dr. Jones confirmed the fact that there has been no significant warming since 1995. That evidence shows up fairly nicely when you examine the satellite data. Now we need to understand why it hasn’t been warming. Perhaps the warming prior to 1995 was natural, and the human footprint is small.”

Dr. Timothy Ball, a climatologist and former professor of geology at the University of Winnipeg, says Jones’ statements undermine the IPCC’s core thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW):

“By conceding the existence of the Medieval Warm Period one thousand years ago and admitting there have been other warm periods during the last century similar to the last run-up in temperatures, he has negated two pivotal arguments in the 2001 IPCC report. In other words, every single country has based its energy policies on a report that one of its lead authors is now saying is false,” Ball says.

Professor Jones has faced a storm of criticism following the leak of e-mails last November indicating that he and other scientists may have been manipulating temperature data (see “Battle of the graphs”), evading freedom of information requests, blacklisting skeptical scientists, and interfering with the peer-review process by preventing the publication of research criticizing the made-made-global-warming theory. He was forced to step down late last year as CRU director and is still under investigation for possible violations of Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.

Shortly after Jones’ BBC interview, Professor Peter Liss, now CRU's acting director, came to the defense of the beleaguered scientist, calling global warming skeptics “dangerous” and accusing them of “playing Russian roulette with the planet.”

“If you’re on the climate skeptics’ side, you have to have really good evidence for your case, because if you’re wrong, then the consequences for all of us and all our children and whoever comes after is hugely influenced.

“I don’t see that evidence. I see lots of assertion, but it’s not backed up. It’s very dangerous and like playing Russian roulette with the planet.”

Robert Felix, author of "Not by Fire but by Ice" and host of Ice Age Now, denounced Liss’ attack, citing it as further proof that “the entire CRU institution seems to be infected” with an intractable “we’re always right” mindset that is hostile towards anyone or anything that challenges official dogma.

“Professor Liss’ statement is incredible. He says we have to back our assertions. It’s time for them to back up theirs,” he demanded.

An astute visitor to the Web site, WhatsUpWithThat, posted a note that explains in a nutshell why scientists like Professor Liss, as well as politicians and establishment media outlets, cling resolutely to a theory that appears to be increasingly indefensible:

“Too many scientists have staked their reputations on the CO2/AGW theory, too many politicians have been made to look gullible, and the mainstream media won’t admit that they have deliberately suppressed contrarian scientists.”