Candid answers
The BBC’s Roger Harrabin has interviewed Phil “CRU” Jones and put to him a number of questions, many from a decidedly sceptical viewpoint. The questions, labelled A – W, provide many revealing answers. Here are some of the most interesting:
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Translation: There is nothing unusual about the late 20th century warming.
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Translation: There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
Translation: We don’t know what caused the warming, so it must be us.
E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Translation: Despite my answer to “D”, I know which side my bread is buttered.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
I dont know why somebody doesnt look seriously at time lag from the sun since 1950.
1. Sun inreased in activity 1750-1950.
2. Warming continues after maximum incoming radiation. (same as strongest sun around noon-but max T is ~3pm, or eg longest day is December 22, yet max T mid is Feb in southern hemisphere-a time lag of around 25% of the warming trend in both cases).
3. 50++ years is no big deal for the sun to warm the oceans and atmosphere with a time lag of around 25% form 1750-1950. T should eventually start to taper off, which is what appears to be happening.
Too simple? This happens every day of the year, signficantly affected by clouds etc.
Translation number #1: There have been four clear periods of warming during industrial times.
Translation #2: The data we have from 1995-present show a warming trend which is almost significant to a 95% significance level.
Translation #3: Anthropogenic GHGs are the best explanation for recent warming. Other possible causes don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Translation #4: For the period after 1950, we can say that we have evidence of human cause warming.
I don’t know why it was so hard for you translate this properly. And of course you didn’t include his answers to questions F, Q, or well, gee, (why is it up to me to provide the link?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
@Jaggedben: The link is there, mate, always was. Just look for it, you’ll find it in the end! The “Read it here” is a clue. But I just loved your warmist excuses – they really did make me smile, thanks!
#1 There were virtually no anthro emissions in 1860, nor 1910 (except from horses backfiring). Nor in the holocene climate optimum, nor in the RWP, nor the MWP. 1975 – 1998 and 1995 – 2009 are the same period. So two out of three warming phases were pre-industrial.
#2 We have “nearly” 95% confidence that there is warming as opposed to no warming (which means it is virtually lost in the noise).
#3 “We don’t know what causes these terrible storms – it must be the gods angry with us – quick throw another goat on the altar.”
#4 Show me the evidence of human caused warming and we can all go home. $70 billion spent on research and still not proven.
Translations of F, Q and Gee:
F: “Nothing to see here. Thermometer data is 100% reliable. Move along.”
Q: “Nothing to see here. We did nothing wrong – it’s just a storm in a teacup. Move along.”
Gee: “Damn that Medieval Warm Period. I wish there was some way we could just get rid of it.” Haven’t I heard that somewhere before?
Funny I didn’t read about this on the ABC!
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/jones-bbc-interview-missing-in-action.html