Guess companies across the globe must have succeeding in curbing carbon emissions, so, kudos particularly to the Chinese and Indians for growing their economies without increasing their carbon output.
Professor Phil Jones, “whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change . . ., said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.” Apparently, Mr. Jones organizational skills are lacking–and he has had trouble keeping track of his data:
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
UPDATE: Commenting on a line in the article about how this impacts the global warming debate, “The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made”, Althouse offers:
Everyone should perceive flaws! To talk about “sceptics” as the ones who will “seize” upon “evidence” of flaws is unwittingly to make global warming into a matter of religion and not science. It’s not the skeptics who look bad. “Seize” sounds willful, but science should motivate us to grab at evidence. It’s the nonskeptics who look bad.
Read the whole thing. Dunno that I agree with Ann’s interpretation here, but, as usual, she does create food for thought.