It appears that James Delingpole seeks to edit out the facts that don’t fit with his perrrculiarly sensationalist narrative.
I thought to engage in a little frank discussion, contributing the benefit of my wisdom at this post :-
But I was thwarted.
What happened ?
Right after this comment from “realityreturns” :-
“realityreturns on Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:46 am
[in response to] Catweazle on Apr 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Good post, Cat…..”
I wrote this :-
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.
joabbess on Apr 7th, 2010 at 11:12 am
My dear good sir, as you are clearly affixed to the practice of reason, let me contend with you concerning a few of your critical thoughts.
You cite my regard towards this hypertext linkage :-
wherein we see claim that warming in the recent 100 years is “completely normal”.
I believe you may have sourced your chart here :-
whose writers present information making them appear to be well-accredited statistical genii.
The diagram makes reference of a URL for the data at :-
I have attempted to find the data that made this graph, and used the mighty Excelling package to replicate it (without the superimposed supposed red trend lines) :-
The first thing of note is that in the last two decades, the usual temperatures are higher than any couple of decades in the whole series of data (take the line of 10 degrees as a visual cue).
The second thing to note is that this data related only and purely to the Temperature of Central England, hardly representative of the world at large, at which gaffe many would chortle over their warm, frothy beer.
The third thing to note is that this is not the same data set as this chart :-
which combines land with ocean temperatures, globally, not just for Central England.
There is nothing in the famous NASA Blob Chart that indicates that, on the whole, temperatures are resorting to coolness :-
And many world organisations accept the general conclusions of this other fine NASA chart, depicting global temperatures since 1880 :-
As for the periods of time that Phil Jones was asked to comment on, indeed, if you break up the recent time series into periods, you can see warming at some times and cooling at others. That’s the result of natural variability, which you know. What’s intriguing is that the warming in the warming periods is of a similar trend, suggesting that if the natural variability were to be removed, then the overall warming would be entirely consistent with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as a result of increased radiative forcing from the accumulation of increasing Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere.”
Well, looking just now, I find that there is a new comment on the post, but, strangely, mine does not appear; still unmoderated, or worse, consigned to the trash, perhaps :-
“Catweazle on Apr 7th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
[in response to] realityreturns on Apr 7th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Thank you, rr.
Isn’t it funny how they all run away and hide the moment you introduce some real science – no matter how extremely basic – into the debate?…”
Naturally, those who know the truth look like they “all run away and hide”, if their contribution to the discussion is wiped out of the record.
Perhaps James Delingpole has taken the decision to dismiss my comment as being of no import to the discussion he is hosting.
What ? Can’t handle the truth, James ? Is it all too much for you to take in ? Or is there something that you don’t understand about my contribution ? I could help you. All you need to do is call me and ask me to clarify what the real facts are.