It all sounds like the same professor Phil Jones, and it all sounds likle the same material. If you've ever listened to a discussion of alternative methods od presenting a graph or of presenting data to get material across in the most clearly understandable fashion, you would have seenheard the same discussion about five hundred times in different forms before. As a circumferentially challenged fella, I have had to find various ways of dealing with a graph of my own avoirdupois.
For those of you with less of a scientific bent, us fat folk sometimes have to keep track of our weight. We have a choice of ways to do so. We can weigh ourselves daily, weekly, we can weigh ourselves with our cloths on, off, at various times of the day and so on. All of these methods will give us information about how much we weigh. Some ththods will give us useful information, some will give us confusing information,some methods will give us helpful information, and some information will actually be damaging in our weight management process. Huan Yi, as a physician, knows this. He is either being disingenuous, or is failing to apply his knowledge to his understanding of the global warming brouhaha in this case. The discussion of dealing with the data that has caused the upset among those that are upset about it, is a discussion by Dr. Jones of how to present the data in the most useful fashion for the publication, and not how to conceal the truth. This is a discussion that has to happen in every publication that presents data, especially one that hasn't done an already well edited job of presenting it in the first place.
As to which Phil Jones to believe, since there is only a single phil Jones, I would suggest that the question is meaningless. The question has to do with which publication to believe. That is a more difficult question to answer, since either side could be correct in actuality. In looking at the way the information was presented in each article, however, I would point out that the language used in the BBC attributed piece was pretty objective and the language used in The Washington Times Article was pretty inflammatorty.
“The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence.
assertion in advance of fact
The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones,[...] was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times.
in looking at the BBC article upon which this story is based, I saw no such concession. Look for yourself, and if you can find that concession, perhaps you can quote it.
Quite the contrary, Professor Jones is fairly specific about the reasons that such a conclusion are not proven and are not provable at this point, and may never be provable at all.
This, this conclusion by the Washington Times is, to put it kindly, unsupported conjecture:
If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.
Speaking of Professor Jones's comments about his difficulty in keeping his office tidy, The Washington Post takes and enormous left field shot at the Professor, attempting to connect his ability as a housekeeper and his ability as a scientist, as though the two were closely linked. That sound you are hearing is Doctor Einstein rolling over in his grave.
This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer.
I thought it was particularly telling how The Washington Times managed to insert that bit about global Warming being a scam in there as well without evening trying to put a single fact in to prove it. Apparently, since the article has not started to leave the earth gravitation field behind, the notion of grounding assertions in fact has been lefty way way behind as well.
The Washington Times in this article calls Global Warming "hysteria," "just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel."
This, of course, may not be quite what they wanted to say, since a good part of America will trust their local news for a decent idea of what to wear the next day; but we are talking about "The Washington Times," here, aren't we, and they can get a bit confused sometimes. You know those confused weathermen and their confus3ed computer modeling and all that confused science stuff that gives us fairly accurate forcasts. Never Mind, Washington Times.
So, John, it sounds like the same Phil Jones to me. And the same old Sun Yung Moon, bankrolling the same old Washington Times saying the same old stuff. Who ya gonna believe, Professor Phil Jones or The Reverend Sun Yung Moon? I know where I'll put my money, even though the fools can sometimes be right.
I actually read both articles, and this time. . . this time the science and the logic actually seemed to come out ahead. HOO rah!