Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
Main | ClimateGate 2.0? »

Petition to the President

Guest Post by David Holland

Dick Lindzen has sent to President Trump a letter and petition signed by some 300 scientists and experts (H/T Anthony Watts). The petition is for the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I had some difficulty accessing it but eventually located a pdf of the letter and the petition itself here.

I'm sure Dick speaks for many BH readers as well some of our MPs. Even at the high water mark in 2008 only a little over half of British voters thought humans were responsible for most global warming and less than half thought it a pressing problem. Recent opinion polls now show that barely 10% of the public regard climate change as a serious concern.  Few can now dispute the global agricultural benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration, but in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments.

Hopefully when Parliament debates the Grand Repeal Bill some of our smarter MPs will push to dump any directives requiring reductions in carbon dioxide emissions or support for the UNFCCC.  




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (388)

If you look closely at his photo on Page 35, there's a clear photoshop graft line about a third of the way up, and another far left. This 'scientist' is faking evidence. I wonder why?

Feb 28, 2017 at 10:56 AM | Phil Clarke

Did you spot the grafts, cut-off data and splices in Mann's Hockey Stick? It is a pity you and others were not quicker to condemn Mann, before he trashed science and politics. The whole world is wondering why Mann faked evidence. Can you explain?

Feb 28, 2017 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

NO CONSPIRACY. The aussi's proudly boasted about their vandalism. As to the photoshopping - the relevant part of the photograph is where the mangrove is to be seen growing on a reef flat. Mangroves are so very sensitive to sealevel changes that a mature mangrove on a reef flat indicates no sealevel change. This evidence was so damaging to climate change alarmism (and to the Maldives government who wished to plead climate victimhood) that it had to be destroyed. And it was.

We have previously gone down this path you and I. I have seen the evidence, you have only read about it.

Feb 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

A sceptic might be expected to ask why Morner felt the need to fake evidence. Apparently not,

Feb 28, 2017 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke


The petitions sent to the President first by Scientific American and more recently by Dick Lindzen were open to almost anyone and each will have its share of loose cannons and maybe worse, but I think Dicks letter is the more convincing. Almost half the US voters effectively voted to end participation in the UNFCCC and at the very least a quarter of Brexit voters are opposed to climate change policies.

You could be one of the activists that I first came across in 2004 at a meeting addressed by Nils-Axel Mörner and two other Professors, who were unarguably world class and highly respected in their fields. As soon the question session started the activists jumped up removing their anoraks and displaying their green credentials. They attempted and indeed nearly succeeded in intimidating and disrupting the meeting, banging on relentlessly about fossil fuel funding.

However they undoubtedly increased my interest in climate change as they demonstrated the aggressive ideological ranting that I first experienced from my RE teacher. I am sure many others only casually following the climate change debate were also persuaded to look further and smell a rat. In short you are welcomed here as recruiting sergeant.

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:12 PM | Registered CommenterDavid Holland

Feb 28, 2017 at 11:47 AM | Phil Clarke

Climate Scientists should have learned about the risks of faking evidence as a result of Mann. But years on, they have still not criticised Gergis for her failed attempt to prove Mann.

Their slowness to learn the basics of science and honesty, is why they are facing a mass extinction event. No one will miss them, it is not as though they ever did anything beneficial for anyone else.

There may be some work in trying to identify any good bits of Climate Science, before it all gets thrown out, but this will require honesty aswell as intelligence. Hockey Teamsters need not apply.

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Fortunately they are petitioning President Trump and not Obama !

Russell and Clarke make a great comedy double act.

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea


SciAm Open Letter, 800+ scientists in relevant disciplines collated over a single month, over 150 at Professor level, hundreds of published papers between them.

Lindzen: 300+, over 3 months consisting politicians, engineers, a few climate scientists, no recent publications, a GP, a forestry manager, a number whose affiliation or qualifications are kept secret.

One of these things is not like the other.

Do you dispute the accuracy of what I wrote about Morner, Ball, Easterbrook, Singer, Monckton et al? Including Monckton alone is sufficient to render the petition worthy of ridicule.

Almost half the US voters effectively voted to end participation in the UNFCCC and at the very least a quarter of Brexit voters are opposed to climate change policies.

Sources? Even if true so what? The petition pretends to be about scientific, not popular opinion.

What was your source for the 10% number BTW?

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Oh Phil you are not a seeker after truth are you? A seeker after dirt from those you disagree with perhaps.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Phil Clarke

You track record of dishonesty speaks volumes for the credibility of Climate Science. You now seem to be creating another flawed public opinion survey, based on the assumption that lying Climate Scientists agree that they don't lie.

I take it you have no honest science to offer, hence your dependency on Smearology.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (October 2015).
In 2007–2008, the Gallup Poll surveyed individuals from 128 countries ....

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRFS

nothing beats a warm diesel motor (tdi) in efficient propulsion.

eu regulation (europes overpaid entitled commies hq) defined an idiotic "filter" to be installed in diesels which
needs continuous maintenance. As a result most diesels are running at double the pollution they would normally cause.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered Commentervenus

Up until now, climate scientists coming up with the approved results have assumed they have a job for life. President Trump is likely to change that so watch for a sudden rush of bravery and more scientists expressing doubts about the settled science.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones


Your link is to the 2008 Gallup poll. It's the high water mark that I referred to. It followed the massive worldwide PR campaign based on the hockey stick. Since then we have had TGGWS, Cimategate 1-3 and the pause. There are plenty of recent polls that show only around 10% regard global warming as a serious concern.

Of the almost 10 million worldwide polled by the United Nations more than twice as many want better health care, job opportunities, and honest government than want “action taken on climate change”. Even in the poorest countries people rate access to telephone and Internet facilities above action on climate change, which came dead last out of 20.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM | Registered CommenterDavid Holland

So we ignore the rebuttal of his Maldives work in followup peer-reviewed studies, we ignore him misrepresenting his credentials, we don't care that he publishes (badly) photoshopped images, that he embraces the psuedoscience of divination (again badly), and his cooky theories on archeaology.

I'm bound to ask, exactly when does the 'scepticism' kick in? LOL.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

There are plenty of recent polls that show only around 10% regard global warming as a serious concern.

And I get accused of handwaving.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Policy has gone beyond the limits of science, and it has become destructive. It's that simple, Phil; the tide has turned.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

What was your source for the 10% number BTW?

Feb 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Phil Clarke

What convinced you that Gergis proved Mann? Why did none of your preferred sources not spot that Gergis confirmed Mann's Hockey Stick must be based on flawed data and methodology?

What was your evidence for believing anything produced by Climate Scientists? I did once, until I realised what a greedy bunch of liars they were

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

It's that simple, Phil; the tide has turned.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM | kim

But he still thinks sea level is rising

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:38 PM | Phil Clarke

What about all the rebuttalls and debunkings of Mann's Hockey Stick, that "expert" Climate Scientists choose to ignore, despite the IPCC deciding not to mention it?

By the time Climate Science learns about honesty, hell may well have frozen over.

Feb 28, 2017 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Of the almost 10 million worldwide polled by the United Nations more than twice as many want better health care, job opportunities, and honest government than want “action taken on climate change”. Even in the poorest countries people rate access to telephone and Internet facilities above action on climate change, which came dead last out of 20.

Ah, the ranking fallacy. I assume you're referring to the 'My World' Survey?

It was actually 16 categories. People were asked to name their top 6. Out of 9.7 million who voted around 1.9m (20%) included Action on climate change in their 6 choices. The top choice was Education with 6.5m.

If I had no or restricted access to education, clean water, food security, communications and stable government then climate change would indeed be down my list of priorities. But look at the segmentation and see how it rises up the table as HDI increases. Fascinating.

And of course the Paris Agreement was agreed unanimously by all countries, and recently achieved the 55% needed for ratification.

Then there was this from the Pew Centre:

Publics in 19 of 40 nations surveyed cite climate change as their biggest worry, making it the most widespread concern of any issue included in the survey. A median of 61% of Latin Americans say they are very concerned about climate change, the highest share of any region. And more than half in every Latin American nation surveyed report substantial concerns about climate change. In Peru and Brazil, where years of declining deforestation rates have slowly started to climb, fully three-quarters express anxiety about climate change.

Climate Change Seen as Top Global Threat

Feb 28, 2017 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Feb 28, 2017 at 2:18 PM | Phil Clarke

But everyone knows not to trust Climate Science statistics. They are 97% faked-up fabrications.

Have you run out of science?

Climate Science has been damaging, Global Warming has not.

Feb 28, 2017 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Concerning the petition by 800 actual climate scientists that PC referred to at 7.42am.
Applying a similar reasoning as PC, looking down the first 40 names of those real climate scientists, (not boffered going any further) we find 7 emeritus proffs, old duffers must be out of touch, 3 whose specialty is Biology, 5 energy production, 2 Communication, 1 Accountability, 1 Sustainability, 1 Soil, 1 Industrial Affairs, 1 History, and 1 working for an NGO.
So about 60% who are not climate specialists according to the PC logic.

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterRednose

We need to worry when sea level stops rising. We need to worry even when the rate of rise slows, but the evidence of cooling will probably cause us to worry earlier than that.

It's pretty clear that rise has been steady. That climate science has faked up an increase in the rate of rise is particularly horrifying, given that it is critical that we understand and appreciate the reality.

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

PC references a pamphlet and suggests that the photo p35 has been photoshopped. As a keen photographer who knows Photoshop and Lightroom very well, that does not look like a Photoshopped image to me, it looks an image which has been partially data corrupted - the horizontal line passes all the way through the image. The classic example of a photoshopped image is the polar bear on the ice floe of course, where its hard to tell.

Warwick Hughes has a nice reference to a Maldives tree here:

Hard to see how that is photoshopped and he has a reference to the original video source. You can find that at:

The full video scene with the tree is at about 7:45 mins in part 3 I link to. Complete with Nils Axel-Morner.

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

A petiiton like this is basically an appeal to authority… [sic]
I would have thought that any petition could be described as an appeal to authority… perhaps I am wrong.

Talking of pots and kettles, Mr Clarke, it should be noted that most of your arguments are little more than appeals to authority, and with authorities that have been more thoroughly discredited than you claim for many on this petition. Be careful; you are walking on thin ice with these arguments – especially then you immediately make your own appeal to authority in your response!

As for the “photoshopped” picture, if the intention was to deceive do you really think that he would have made such a cack-handed mess of it? Even I could have done better! His mistake, if you could call it that, was that he did not make it clear that it was two photos, then combine them. Possibly, the upper part was taken when the tide was in, concealing the roots (there are indications that may have been so), and the lower part taken when the tide was out. It is possible that both photos were taken for other reasons, not connected with the paper; Mr Mörner saw them, and thought that, combined, they presented a good example of what his paper was about. Of course, the conspiracy theorist in you, Mr Clarke, cannot see anything other than nefarious intent in such actions.

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:30 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

As for the Pew survey, it is interesting to note that the “publics” of these countries are most concerned about what the mainstream media present to them – most Americans are still very wary of Russia, and the media is not loathe to exploit that, when the situation demands it (e.g. “they” caused Trump’s win! *facepalm*). It is also interesting to note that most of those countries “most concerned” about climate change are those where the internet is not as open as what we are used to, and the state has greater control over the media – it should also be noted that these countries can blame someone else for the perceived change, and can expect some sort of recompense for it, so can see great benefit from being most concerned. Perhaps it is the cynical sceptic in me, but I note that the sample size of all but three countries was about 1,000; even in China, it was only 3,649. Can realistic conclusions be drawn when as little as 0.0002% of the population has been surveyed? (But then, of course, you are one who considers a rise of an unmeasurable amount that is one-tenth of an error band that is similarly effectively unmeasurable as some sort of proof, so maybe that is a rhetorical question…) The surveys were either face-to-face or by telephone, thus introducing another potential source of bias. The Pew Research Centre is an estimable organisation, but results such as this should only be viewed as an interesting start for further research, not the empirical conclusion you seem to have bestowed upon it.

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:32 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Applying a similar reasoning as PC, looking down the first 40 names of those real climate scientists, (not boffered going any further) we find 7 emeritus proffs, old duffers must be out of touch, 3 whose specialty is Biology, 5 energy production, 2 Communication, 1 Accountability, 1 Sustainability, 1 Soil, 1 Industrial Affairs, 1 History, and 1 working for an NGO.

Couple points: the list is in academic rank order (profs first) so the first 40 you might expect to contain a high concentration of retired academics and emeritus, which turns out to be the case, the total for the whole 800+ list is 17 emeritus. Lindzen's 300 had 44.

Secondly there's something wrong with your categorisation, it would leave 17 actual non-emeritus climate scientists in the first 40. I found 24.

Dr. David Archer, Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette, Professor and Department Head, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Dr. Peter U. Clark, Distinguished Professor, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University
Dr. Kim Cobb, ADVANCE Professor, Georgia Power Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Carrick M. Eggleston, Professor and Head, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming
Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland, Professor of Climate Change, Director of the Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University
Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University
Dr. Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
Dr. Ben Santer, climate scientist
Dr. Lee R. Kump, Professor and Head, Department of Geosciences, Penn State
Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. R. Pamela Reid, Professor, Marine Geosciences, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dr. John Abraham, Professor of Thermal Sciences (including climate change, energy production and distribution), University of St. Thomas
Dr. Daniel F. Belknap, Professor, School of Earth and Climate Sciences, University of Maine
Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor, School of the Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of South Carolina
Dr. Josh Willis, NASA Climate Scientist
Dr. Cindy Shellito, Professor of Meteorology, University of Northern Colorado
Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists [IPCC Lead Author]
Susan Joy Hassol, Director, Climate Communication [Senior Science Writer on all three National Climate Assessments]
Richard Heede, Co-Founder & Director, Climate Accountability Institute [has published on AGW]
Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Professor of Energy, Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Science Envoy, U.S. State Department [IPCC Lead Author]

Most of whom have published more on their own on climate than Lindzen's entire list.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Feb 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered Commenter ThinkingScientist

I was thinking the same thing, there are signs of errors to the right above the join and likewise on the left below the join. Possible that a number of lines were lost which may explain the step in brightness. This loss/corruption may also have caused what looks to be a pixel offset resulting in a column of pixels of the right hand side being placed on the left hand side. Could play with cutting and pasting them together. :) The image extracted from the PDF is 900*675 but it could have been cropped etc. anyway.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

Radical Rodent & ThinkingScientist

1.) I don't think PhotoShop was available to Mann when he pieced together his fabricated Hockey Stick.

2.) Phil Clarke's "Appeals to Authority" tend to fail, as they involve people who have seen no fault with 1.)

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Most of whom have published more on their own on climate than Lindzen's entire list.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:12 PM | Phil Clarke

With names like Mann, Santer, and Trenberth on your list of people who can't see anything wrong in Climate Science, do you not see the scale of the problem Climate Science is facing in its final weeks at US Taxpayers expense? Zero credibility for starters?

Fortunately, Trump is not as gullible as Obama, and neither of them as dangerous as Clinton.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Since ad hominen is okay for some, here's my comment:

There was an alarmist called Phil
who attacked everyone else on the Hill
he worked hard for the 'cause',
even denying the pause,
and most thought he was mentally ill.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:35 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus


I’m a Maldivian and I consider myself a student of climate science. I have great respect for Prof Morner, but I will have to question his ’scientific methods’ especially those used in the ‘Maldives Sea Level Project’.
On the issue of the tree, Morner has provided false facts to the world. The island the tree is located is called Viligilli and is next (immediately west) to the Nation’s Capital Male’ (see on googleearth). The tree was located on the southeast corner of the island along part of a stable rocky oceanward coastline. The island WAS (not ‘is’ as stated by Morner) a prison island until 1973. There are no records that prisoners cried out “Ah, freedom!” when they saw the one tree. However, some did refer to an entire bulge on the southeast corner of the island, which is the only such area on an otherwise a smooth coastline. The tree is called ironwood (Pemphis acidula). It’s known for its resilience against salt and is usually the dominant species in very high wave energy and salt spray zones. Having traveled to over 600 islands in Maldives I have witnessed a number of such one ‘tree’s’. The tree in question simply has withstood erosion in the last 10 or so years while weaker trees around it fell. Aerial photographs of 1968/1969, 1998 and 2004 shows that the area is relatively stable with occasional erosion. There have been a number of trees in this specific area of the island like the one in question which have remain separated from the island. It is part of the erosion process. The tree most likely was there 50 years ago but it certainly was not alone as it is now. It is these kinds of adhoc observation based conclusions rather than rigorous assessments which make me question the findings of Morner.

On the question of naughty Australian Scientists and schoolies, I think this just an emotional view of Morner. This island has now become an inhabited island and one of the most frequently visited ‘picnic islands’ for Male’ residents. There are enough naughty boys to cut down such a tree for any reason. It is absurd to blame responsible scientists in the field, without a shred of decent evidence, even due to uncontrolled emotions

Comment at WUWT (my bold)

And ultimately, it was one tree, vs millions of satellite observations

We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary]. The consensus of all other researchers looking at the T/P and Jason data is that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.0 mm/year (Fig. 1) over the last 13 years (3.3 mm/year when corrected for the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005)). Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained, based on our years of experience as members of the T/P and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently oblivious to the corrections that must be made to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use of the data


When care is taken to make these corrections, the rate of sea level change over the entire T/P mission is 3.0± 0.4 mm/year(, 3.3 mm/year when corrected for the change in ocean volume due to glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005). In light of this, the statement by Mörner that “This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations” is completely false and is based on his erroneous data processing. Mörner’s paper completely misrepresents the results from the T/P mission, and does discredit to the tremendous amount of work that has been expended by the Science Working Team to create a precise, validated, and calibrated sea level data set suitable for studies of climate variations. Finally, Mörner ignores substantial other oceanographic (e.g. Levitus et al., 2001; Antonov et al., 2002; Munk, 2003; Willis et al., 2004) and cryospheric (e.g. Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000; Rignot et al., 2003; Krabill et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2004) evidence of sea level rise which corroborate the altimeter observations.

Morner's claims have been cut to ribbons repeatedly in peer-reviewed studies. But hey, you cling on to that tree.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM | Phil Clarke

You just stick with your lies and preferred liars, and we can watch out for them to have some genuine convictions.

The WUWT thread you refer to is worth reading in full, along with all the comments, not just Phil Clarke's Hockey Teamster lies.

It is of note that unreliable, and untrustworthy sites such as Real Climate and SKeptical Science censor out unfavourable comments, to aid their Consensus Delusions.

Feb 28, 2017 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Call me a sceptic, call me a cynic, call me a denier… but I have been involved with liquid level measurements in large tanks, and can say that even in those tanks that appear to be immobile, there can be large ranges in readings, whatever means is used in the measurement. How do satellites obtain their readings of the oceans? However it may be, do consider that they are reading an incredibly vertically-mobile surface, with its levels potentially influenced by more than one factor. Are the satellites getting sufficient readings from any one site to be able to approximate the most likely level? Or do they just skim over, and hope that the averages will all work out? Of the two, I hope that you would agree that the former is the more scientific (unless you are of the opinion that, where science fails, statistics will help). To give an indication of the logistics involved, try reading the water-level in your bath, and determining any changes, in millimetres, while you are sitting in the bath.

IF you read the header of the Sea Level Research Group, you will note that it does not claim accuracy, it acknowledges that the returns are estimates (my bolding):

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.
It is work in progress, and under constant review and revision. As there does not seem to be universal agreement how temperatures should be determined over the long term, I moot that sea-levels also suffer similar conflict.

Feb 28, 2017 at 5:39 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Morner's claims have been cut to ribbons repeatedly in peer-reviewed studies. But hey, you cling on to that tree.

Feb 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM | Phil Clarke

Studies written and Peer Reviewed by Climate Scientists are not worth the taxpayer funded paper they are on, let alone the Taxpayer funded grants that paid for them. Gergis proved Mann, allegedly, and all the other Hockey Sticks fraudsters, because Phil Clarke said so, and NO ONE from the 97% of Climate Scientists has ever admitted anything wrong, not even liar Phil Clarke, despite being offered several opportunities

But hey, Phil Clarke wants to cling to his Stick.

Feb 28, 2017 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

PC 4.12pm

Cannot follow your reasoning here, but I suspect I would not be the first.

Counting down the first 40 on that list, I counted 7 with emeritus after their names.
Using your reasoning these should be ignored as they are obviously retired and out of touch with cutting edge climate science and should not have a creditable opinion.
If you claim there are more retired types in the first 40, that's fine we can cross them off as well.

Of the remaining 33, 3 obviously specialised in Biology so don't count either. 5 in energy production
And so on with the others listed i.e. 23 of the first 40 rounded up to 60%, who using your logic are not active specialists in climate science.
If we considered the full list in the same way I suspect we could knock the number down substantially

Feb 28, 2017 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRednose

Rednose, sorry if I was not clear. Yes there are 7 emeritus in the first 40, your characterisation is yours, not mine. My point was that Emeritus are over represented in the beginning of the list, there being just 10 more in the following 760+.

I suspect you've just looked at the listed current title or affiliation. I think you need to dig a little deeper, eg Dr Peter Frumhof is listed as Director of Policy at UCS but he is also an IPCC Lead Author. I found 24/40 people with relevant climate expertise rather than your 17.

Feb 28, 2017 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Rather insulting to believe that an expert in sea-level (based on a life-time study of coastal features) could not identify a mangrove tree. Then of course there are those Aussi activists who were early propagators of what is now known as fake news or alternative facts. They probably only gently stroked that tree*.

Also those millions of satellite measurements are all so slightly massaged to get them to perform adequately.

* The important fact about that tree is that lived on a flat surface that becomes flooded. The Maldive Ironwood, while tolerant of salt spray, does not grow in flooded settings, whereas the Red Mangrove does.

Feb 28, 2017 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Phil Clarke & Rednose

surely anyone who writes in support of Mann's Hockey Stick, and the 97% Consensus, simply discredits their own professionalism, irrespective of their qualification, especially if they once held the title "President of the USA." Luckily for genuine and honest Scientists around the world, the current POTUS does not believe in Voodoo Science.

some "experts" in mangroves lost all interest in the subject once Ursula Andress appeared in Dr No. Phi Clarke always relies on insulting people, it is in Module 1 of DIY Climate Science-Abuse manuals.

Sadly, satellite records don't record the drop in sea levels around Harlech Castle (Wales) and Winchelsea (Kent) since their development during the Medieval Warm Period.

Feb 28, 2017 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

It is curious, but one thing that many do not accept (or, at least, are reluctant to acknowledge) is that coral atolls are ONLY there because the coral reefs on which they are based, and the lagoon that is formed, have grown so far that it has become a trap for, primarily, the sand that is a resultant of coral erosion. Other detritus will also be trapped, be it flotsam washed down by rivers on far-away islands and continents, or the corpses of inhabitants of the surrounding oceans. Its presence will also attract the many air-breathing animals that prowl the surface of the seas, most usually for breeding purposes; these animals might also bring their own cargo to the atoll, such as many of the seeds from which the vegetation grows (coconuts and mangroves can drift there on their own).

What this means is that, should sea levels rise, so will the coral atoll – many of the Pacific islands provide evidence of that, as they are actually increasing in area. Storms will help the process, too, enabling the principle component of building the atoll, sand, to be brought to higher levels by either water or wind action – after all, how did the Maldives reach the dizzying heights of 6 feet above sea-level in the first place?!

Feb 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Gwendolyn. Ursula Andress you say; I was busy admiring the Red and Black Mangroves. Did I miss anything important?

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Hi Phil
Good work on arguing against the "skeptics" here.

Interesting news today that the well-known 'Skeptic' organization called Shell was quite clear about the risk of climate change back in 1991. Maybe they are part of the 'liberal conspiracy' too? Not that this will impact the alternative reality that BH posters inhabit.

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

PC 6.17pm

So your estimate is 60% of those listed are active proper climate scientists and mine is 40%.
Using arguments you have used previously, the 800 total signees is likely to contain between 320 and 480 active proper climate scientists
A significant reduction on your touted 800.
The remainder, in their ignorance, were perhaps taking the opportunity to signal their virtue.

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRednose


Shell were caught doing deals with CRU climate scientists to set their research agenda and promote their CDM/carbon trading agenda.

"Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.[Clean Development Mechanism]"

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Phil. It's not one tree, its a series of elevated and lithified beach levels that occur on many of the islands. These were isotopically dated and reveal higher sea levels in the recent past. These raised levels cannot be the result of storms because the Maldives are not affected by cyclones and unlike most tropical carbonate islands did not form from storm ridge deposits.

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Shell also sponsored Guardian's climate change pages for some time leading up to Copenhagen. Conclusion: Shell LOVE global warming / carbon trading.

"Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

But who is it that sponsors the Guardian's Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)

And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)


Feb 28, 2017 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

And Exxon Mobil too! Gosh these 'libruls' get everywhere!

Feb 28, 2017 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Feb 28, 2017 at 2:18 PM - Phil Clarke:

And of course the Paris Agreement was agreed unanimously by all countries, and recently achieved the 55% needed for ratification.

True - but why is that relevant?

Feb 28, 2017 at 9:00 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Monty, No one doubts climate change. It was, after all, one of the main arguments by sceptics that the flat lining hockey stick handle failed to reflect historical climate changes.

Now that climate scientists deny CAGW, and even deny that they ever promoted the theory of CAGW, it has left the politicians high and dry. Sooner or later they will notice: Trump being the first one to do so. The science will remain interesting, but the era of spending $trillions to alleviate a catastrophe that even climate scientists no longer claim will happen, is drawing to a close.

Feb 28, 2017 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBudgie

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>