Former CRU chief admits warming may not be unprecedented POSTED AT 10:54 AM ON FEBRUARY 14, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY In a rather stunning series of admissions, the suspended chief of the East Anglia CRU now admits that the warming seen in the late 20th century may not be unprecedented after all, that the planet has stopped warming for the last 15 years despite the predictions of AGW advocates, and that his own record-keeping has been poor. Phil Jones, who stepped down at least temporarily from his position at the CRU when its e-mails exposed a series of embarrassing attempts by climate scientists to undermine careers of skeptics and to hide contradictory data, now says that the entire basis of the âhockey stickâ graph could have been invalid: But thatâs just the start: The âhockey stickâ graph has already been shown to be mainly a creation of graph-scaling bias, but this gets to the heart of the entire argument. During the MWP, farmers grew crops on Greenland for a couple of centuries. Until now, AGW advocates insisted that the warming only took place in the northern hemisphere. If that warming was indeed global, then it dwarfs anything seen in the 20th century, as these two charts from Climate Audit, via Sonic Frog, demonstrate: If the massive warming seen in Europe occurred around the world, then what we have seen in the 20th century would be almost certainly a moderate, natural, cyclical warming coming out of a cold trough. It would also call into question what exactly a good temperature would be for the Earth. After all, even if the second graph only applied to the northern hemisphere, the increased temperatures didnât cause the end of life on the planet; indeed, food became more plentiful, and the melting of the polar-region ice didnât create massive catastrophes. Further underscoring this interpretation are the cooling cycles seen in the mid-century and last fifteen years or so, expecially since the 1940s saw a huge increase in carbon emissions due to wartime production. Jonesâ late admissions demonstrate that there is nothing âsettledâ about AGW, and that the process and the data are too murky for any declarations of certainty.