Honestly, Ben, it's extremely disappointing and a bit frustrating that you continue refusing to answer my questions and instead resort to cutting & pasting articles that you try to use to substantiate your viewpoint. Posting excerpts from an article published by the Daily Mail is no substitute for an answer to a question put directly to you. You're avoiding a polite reply.
It's quite difficult to have an intelligent conversation with one when they refuse to answer or choose to ignore your questions, wouldn't you agree?
Neither has Sounder chosen to answer my questions put to her/him, though many pre-crash posts of theirs have been deleted. I did my very best to answer Sounders question put to me, about the dangers posed by Fukushima's fallout, but received no recognition for my honest effort.
Though you say "from the horses mouth," you chose not to set into bold type his actual words as quoted in the article, but rather those of it's author.
note Ben's emphasis:
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
Please point out anywhere he has been quoted as saying this in its original context. I could not find any such statement from Jones in the Mail article, but did find twice those two words taken together out of context in the authors self-constructed sentences.
Why didn't you set into bold type the really pertinent part of that author's sentence, "...although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend"
Let's see what else you chose not to include from that article..."But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."
Perhaps your omissions were to mislead readers not inclined to read your source material in its entirety? Pretty foolish of you, considering the title of this blog, don't you think?
Although you included this from the Mail "article," I'll now add appropriate emphasis where it should be emphasized:
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.
And, there's this too:
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Jones admitted no such thing!
He stated that the science was scant for these regions and "For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere." He could not and certainly would not either admit or deny the possibility without scientific proof.
Lastly regarding the Mail "article":
"He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled."
Would you please provide us with proof that Jones had ever claimed anywhere that the science of climate change was settled. That would be startling for any scientist to admit, regardless of their field of study.
Let's move on to the WSJ post, but just for a moment, you know, the one you claimed provided "solid evidence hat AGW accelerated global warming is not happening."
A bit odd isn't it, not to have included this bit, the main point of the WSJ piece, don't you think, for someone claiming others are hiding or obfuscating evidence?
(please note for future reference that these little thingies: "?" appearing at the end of my sentences indicate that I am asking you a direct question)
"Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Or this, that immediately follows the above:
"A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.
This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment.
This is the last sentence to the above paragraph and I've separated it purposely to draw attention to it:
"And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."
Playing with emphasis is meant to either draw one away from a point or to emphasize it."And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."
Bolding or enlarging text can distract from the intended meaning, as I've just demonstrated. The scientists who signed that WSJ piece are conveying the message that regulations will hamper profits. The benefit they speak of would be to stockholders and survivors of increased pollution in third world countries as their unimpeded by regulation industries develop.
If that's not adequate enough a demonstration of an intention to mislead by adding emphasis, perhaps this will suffice "...more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."
The WSJ article is an economic dissertation.
First you foolishly put forth a biased opinion piece from the WSJ and call it "proof" and again you resort to the Daily Mail as though it was a credible source. (btw, did you see that demon behind the couch?)