Free market think tank director John Roskam is the latest Australian commentator to be caught out distorting a climatologist’s quotes to support his argument against global warming.
On Monday night’s Q&A program on the ABC, Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, confidently asserted that climatologist Phil Jones, a key academic in the climate-gate affair, had conceded that “the world hasn’t warmed since 1995”.
Roskam’s claim — which went uncorrected by host Tony Jones or his fellow panelists — follows last week’s revelation that News Limited columnist Piers Akerman had used a fictitious quote to accuse former IPCC chairman John Houghton of climate change alarmism.
If you missed Q&A on Monday, here is how the exchange unfolded:
JOHN ROSKAM: Kevin Rudd is running a million miles away from the ETS. You had, the other day, one of the leading climate change scientists in the world say the world hasn’t warmed since 1995.
(GROANS FROM AUDIENCE AND PANEL MEMBERS)JOHN ROSKAM: Now, we can run, and Malcolm you can sigh, Mungo you can sigh, those are not my words. The point is whether…
MUNGO MACCALLUM: Whose words are they?
JOHN ROSKAM: They’re Philip Jones, the head of the Climate Research University, the basis of climategate, so whether you believe in climate change or not, undeniably the public is losing faith in the debate.
But has Jones ever really made such a statement? When asked in a February 13 interview with the BBC whether there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995, Jones responded:
“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.”
Thus, Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; in fact, he said the opposite. Global temperature records show there has been warming since 1995, he says, but it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance.
In the interview Jones does say global warming since 1975 is statistically significant. Yet Jones’s statement was seized upon by the UK tabloid The Daily Mail as a “u-turn” and spread like wildfire through the blogosphere, with scepticallly-inclined bloggers using it as evidence to show scientific support for the global warming hypothesis is crumbling.
John Roskam told Crikey he had not taken Dr Jones’s words out of context.
“Global warming believers would prefer that Phil Jones didn’t say that, but he did,” he said. “I absolutely stand by my comment in the context of the show. This comment from Phil Jones has international significance.”
Roskam says he would like to have added that Jones said there has been no “statistically significant” warming, but was interrupted before he had a chance.
“I’m not a scientist but I’m happy to call myself a sceptic,” Roskam said. “I let people draw their own conclusions about the global warming hypothesis.”
Roskam told Crikey that Christopher Monckton’s statements have been repeatedly distorted and taken out of context by ABC reporters during his recent visit to Australia.
Matthew England, IPCC author and joint director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, says the scientific evidence is unambiguous: the world has warmed since 1995.
“It’s untrue to say there has been no warming since 1995. In the period 1995 to 2008 or 1995 to 2009, there is evidence of warming no matter how you look at the data.”
England says the stress Jones has been under since the leaking of the now infamous climate-gate emails may explain his convoluted answer to the BBC. (Watch Crikey‘s interview with Matthew England at the Copenhagen climate change summit here).
According to the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a summary of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC’s last assessment report:
“Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade… Even over the past 10 years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.”
John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute think tank, says Roskam “should have checked his facts before weighing into the debate”.
“The great irony in the current debate about the science of climate change is that the deniers are attempting to take the moral high ground by pointing to supposed errors, uncertainties and cover-ups in the science, but are themselves resorting to dishonest tactics,” he said.
“A healthy dose of scepticism is good for science and good for public policy, but the combination of denial and dishonesty is a dangerous medicine.”
Given the IPA prolific endeavours to peddle false claims on climate change, it’s tragic Roskam wasn’t challenged.
Roskam is representing an institute which criticised law enforcement on selling tobacco to children and the scientific research on passive smoking.
To add injury to insult they published an article, blaming developed countries for the deaths of millions of people over the ban on DDT. In fact the ban only applied to food crops. There was no ban on the use of DDT for vector control, despite its devastating impacts on biodiversity.
Everyone has a right to free speech, however, should that right be granted to primitive troglodytes and false prophets (feigning enlightenment) who peddle propaganda with impunity?
Both sides of the climate cult are inveterate distorters and blind to the strengths of the other side. Knott is a believer, so he’s unable to see that the discredited Jones’ (all his own work: read ALL the emails) “convoluted” responses to the BBC reflect the crisis within the climate modeller cohort itself. It was Trenberth, you’ll recall, who lamented their inability to measure the temp. increases which HAD to be there post-1999…but weren’t. “A travesty” that the “increases” were evading capture…
The bewildering range of incertitude about the well-observed recent past (not distant future predictions based on primitive science) emanating from AGW cult scientists is not about faulty thermometers- it’s about trends. Everyone can be right, depending on the baseline and statistical manipulation (not the devious sort). The short (decadal) trend shows bugger-all global warming. You can actually get all three answers, up, down and the same, depending on which graph you choose. All three could be right, and yet predict nothing whatever about future temp trends. That’s why there’s panic at Bunker Central- they know damned well they don’t know what’s going to happen next.
The writer, Flower, seems to be doing exactly what Roskam was doing on Q&A – making a dubious claim which could not be challenged within the confines and time constraints of the forum.
Flower writes (above), about “…the ban on DDT. In fact the ban only applied to food crops.”
Question: What ban? By which government or organisation and applying to which country or continent? And which year was that? And which country was it where there was no ban on the use of DDT for vector control? I hope Flower was not referring to Australia. If Flower was referring to Australia then their 4th paragraph needs special consideration. Feigning enlightenment indeed.
Please note, I am not a climate change denier. Climate changes, it always has done and will always do.
Notes on AGW fact or fiction ?
G Collet, Marine engineer, Diesel fitter, Master IV (fishing) Australia,
My background in marine engineering with associated knowledge of
heat transfer in water and air, latent heat of water to water vapor
and water to ice caused me to be skeptical and look for further
evidence.
Any one who has spent time outdoors away from urban heat islands
will have noticed that during night time it is warmer under an
overcast than under a clear sky . Greenhouse effect of clouds. The
opposite occurs during day. Reflection from cloud.
There have been scientific papers published to explain this.
(1) Pro. Richard Linzden, Mas. Institute of Technology. –Climate of
fear, Wall St Journal, April 12 – 2006
(2) Dr Miklas Zargoni, Scientific Paper, Dec, 2009. CO2 Can Not
Cause Any More Global Warming.
(3) Saturated Greenhouse Effect, Graph, — Global Energy Flows
–Trenberth BAMS, 2009.
(4) Hungarian Physicist, Dr Frenec Miskolczi Proves CO2 Emissions
Irrelevant in Earth’s Climate. Scientific paper published. Not
disputed by peers.
All evidence points to the fact that H2O has so much greater
effect, 51 times by one equasion, than CO2 that CO2 becomes
insignificant.
Google advertisement. The Green Guide. – 2009 – Carbon Expected to
be the Largest Commodity Market.
Follow the money.
Conclusion—Carbon trading can not be of benefit to other than
those involved in trading. Absolutely no benefit to the ecology.
Any program that addresses pollution and alternative energy can
only be of benefit
Thanks for the spam Geoff.