Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Phil Clarke denies Mann fails to present his data and that Jones lost his

Sure, I can probably name them, but they are minor. Now Michael 'Piltdown' Mann's Crook't Stick, that's major.

You've got 'Dubious' Mann, 'Illegal' Jones, and 'Fool' Wahl. You still believe in 'multiple lines of evidence' when that is only for warming, not for attribution. For attribution you've got climate models out by a factor of three, 'cuz they've been trained in the belief last century's late warming was mostly anthropogenic when instead it was mostly oceanic. You had paleo proxies(the Crook't Stick) until better paleo proxies kept showing earlier greater warming.

Your simple faith is touching. Why on earth do you believe that an inbred corrupted coterie of a science warped by politics and money can give correct advice?

As we are seeing, the alarm about catastrophe is passing. The villagers have rushed to the pasture and there is no wolf. You and your shepherd boy have a problem.
========================

Apr 3, 2016 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

On a cursory reading Loyola parrots Lomborg's nonsense, gets IPCC estimates on ECS and sea level wrong, repeats the lie that the MBH algorithm generates hockey sticks from random data and claimed that 'the Annals of Applied Statistics has devoted an entire issue to the methodological problems of the Mann study.' when it was actually about Mann 2008 not MBH99 and contained both criticism and support. Clearly he has not read the stuff he cites and is just repeating myths.

Like I said, he can publish any analysis he wants, however if his facts are wrong, so will be his conclusions.

Apr 3, 2016 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Show me a scientist who never lost a single byte of data, or a human being who never wrote an unwise email, read up on the controversy around Millikan's oil drop experiments on the size of the charge on the electron - another scientist who was accused of fraud regarding his validation statistics. Science is littered with imperfections, far greater than those aimed at Mann, Jones et al ( a handful of names), yet it moves forward ....

What the flip is oceanic warming?

Apr 3, 2016 at 7:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Unless I've misunderstood him what kim said was that the late 20th century warming was caused by the oceans rather than anthropogenically. I thought the argument that the oceans were a major influence on climate (which includes temperature) was fairly well understood. Unless you know differently.
And what's this "Lomborg's nonsense" you're on about? I've read a fair amount of his work and found it to be mainly common sense. I know that common sense is in short supply among climate fanatics and I know Lomborg is unpopular because he refuses to toe the party line but keep a sense of proportion.

Apr 3, 2016 at 8:07 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Phil Clarke, and you still maintain Mann got everything right.

Apr 3, 2016 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You must deal with his two theses; they are adamantine.
===================

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, Mike, it's possible he doesn't understand that that is how the models got it so wrong.

He'll learn.
============

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The real question is why haven't the models self-corrected.

The answer is the chains in which the politics holds the science.

We may one day feel a great deal of pity for the mass of climate scientists who've been so enslaved. Too many of them never saw it coming.
===============

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Unless I've misunderstood him what kim said was that the late 20th century warming was caused by the oceans rather than anthropogenically. I thought the argument that the oceans were a major influence on climate (which includes temperature) was fairly well understood. Unless you know differently.

Kim is arguing that climate modellers do not understand ocean oscillations correctly, I am sure an explanation why will be along real soon now. The movement of heat around the oceans is part of natural climate variability and is neither a net gain nor loss, witness the current ENSO warming, and so cannot explain more than a fraction of the four decades or so of warming that has been observed.

Loyola quoted a press release from Lomborg which claimed that implementing all the measures agreed at Paris would produce a reduction in temperature of just 0.05C by 2100, [even though his paper claimed 0.17C], both the paper and the PR made insanely pessimistic assumptions, for example he basically discounts China's pledge to peak emissions by 2030 (on track for 2025 btw), which alone contributes a 0.4C reduction.

John Sterman, Professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and Director of MIT’s System analysed the assumptions and said

Dr. Lomborg sets out to show that the INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] are useless. To do so he grossly misrepresents the pledges. He constructs an incomplete accounting of the pledges that omits the pledges of many nations, ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030, and assumes that the European Union countries abandon their commitment to emissions reductions as soon as their pledges are fulfilled.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720613/lomborg-misleads-paris-climate-pledges/

There's lot more that looks wrong with Loyola's 'facts' but life really is too short ....

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

A nice little irony is that the most unchained model is Russian.
============

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, you still don't understand how mistaking the oceanic cycles warped the models.

His two theses, as in my precis, still do not yield to your strikes at them. You really can't get around them, not persuasively; they explain a lot about our present situation.

You've been dealt a bad hand, and think it shows five aces.
===============

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The real question is why haven't the models self-corrected

Love the way 'the real question' slides around.The models have overestimated global temperatures for several years now however the recent uptick has put them back on track.

You might even say, self-corrected.

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I can understand why you don't understand. I very much admire your command of the debate, but your remit is inadequate. Climate scientists may now be understanding the oceanic oscillations, but they didn't when the models were trained.

This is fatal. The patient barely realizes he's sick.
==========

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, you still don't understand how mistaking the oceanic cycles warped the models.

We have to guess?

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

More simple faith that the models are now in line with temperatures. Even simpler faith that this recent warming excursion will be sustained.

Honestly, you need to get out more. As Kendall pointed out long ago, you've got a biased database. Outdated, too.
=====================

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

You may guess. Mike Jackson understood, as do masses of skeptics. I explained it, inelegantly.

It won't do much good unless you figure it out yourself.
===========

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

A stream of major factual errors in an opinion piece do not dent its authority and climate modellers did not and then did understand natural variability but did not update their physics-based models with the new knowledge. Got that.

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Your pick at my inelegant nit, was revelatory. Either you do understand the point about oceanic warming and model training and are disingenuous, or you don't understand that point, and are ignorant.

Ignorant or disingenuous, it's always the same question, the same question. From your command of the debate, I'd tend toward disingenuous; from the fact that climate alarmists abhor the question, you may well simply be ignorant.

So, I think it is possible you are an honorable man.
====================

Apr 3, 2016 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, minor errors not impacting his rock solid theses.

Yes, we are well and truly through the looking glass. My opinion is that the alarm is an extraordinary popular delusion and madness of the crowd.

We'll get over it. You may not.
==================

Apr 3, 2016 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Again you miss the point. Modelers are just now catching on to the oceanic oscillations. There is inertia, besides the political chains.

But there it is, they've not been updated.
=================

Apr 3, 2016 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kiddo, were they updated, there'd be no cause for alarm. An honest science would update anyway; as it is, this science will only correct once the alarm is shown to be absurd. It's tragic, and more die and are damaged everyday.
================

Apr 3, 2016 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The way that Phil always misses the point by a mile makes me wonder whether he is institutionalised. Obviously he is not considered capable to move in the community. Take pity on the poor chap. He might be suffering from distressing physical deteriorating disorders such as the total inability to understand written English..

Apr 3, 2016 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Kim's evidence-free assertions one has come to expect, and even enjoy. But that's one ad hom over the line.

Goodbye.

Apr 3, 2016 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

He's pretty good though, D. More revelations from him missing the point there; he used a standard appeal to the impeccable authority of climate modelers in attempt to ridicule me. Weak, especially since it failed to go home.
=============

Apr 3, 2016 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Aw, heck, I was just catching on to you.
=======

Apr 3, 2016 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim