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 > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Heh, I thought you knew what was wrong with Marcott and Shakun.
=============

Sep 15, 2016 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Entropic Man, William M Connolley, Michael Mann, and the Hockey Stick Team tried to edit them out of history. It is good to see they at least get a mention in your timeline, if a little oversmoothed.

I think the inconsistencies you are detecting come from Phil Clarke. I do not think that anyone on this thread has linked you to the Phil Clarke inconsistencies.

Thank you for your cordial enquiry. If you would like to return to the thread, I am in agreement with Kim, that the source data is corrupted by it's links with failed attempts to shore-up the HockeyStick. The complete absence of any dip or trough that could have caused SO MANY LEADING LIGHTS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE, to get concerned about a New Ice Age in the 1970s, does not help.

Perhaps the authors were convinced by the lies of Thomas C Peterson and William M. Connolley. The problem with the past, is that Climate Science keeps trying to change it.

Sep 15, 2016 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil

Thanks for reminding me that my memory isn't what it was. :-) However,I'm not yet senile. IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm) states "The terms 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively." So I would say that thing at the end of the 14th century on that graph you linked to, was the end of the MWP. Given that the Little Ice Age is generally regarded as commencing around the beginning of the 17th century, I wouldn't say it features too well on your graph.

As for "I stand corrected thanks, he made changes to c 5400 individual articles, about 7 changes to each.

Not sure that changes very much ....."

Well that's not surprising. In the world of climate science, why would an error of a factor of 7 change very much?!!!

Surely you must agree that 39,162 edits since 7th February 2003 is a trifle, er, odd, nay obsessive. It's almost at the level that ATTP trolls sceptic websites for goodness' sake! It amounts to an average of c 8.5 edits per day, every day for 12 and a half years. I would submit that demonstrates something more than just unusual and deserving to be treated with caution at best and severe scepticism at worst. If you don't agree, then we must have different views of what constitutes normal behaviour.

Sep 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

I see you AR3 and raise you AR5

Little Ice Age (LIA) An interval during the last millennium characterized by a number of extensive expansions of mountain glaciers and moderate retreats in between them, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The timing of glacial advances differs between regions and the LIA is, therefore, not clearly defined in time. Most definitions lie in the period 1400 CE and 1900 CE. Currently available reconstructions of average Northern Hemisphere temperature indicate that the coolest periods at the hemispheric scale may have occurred from 1450 to 1850 CE.

Regarding WMC's 'obsessive' editing, your arithmetic is off but not in a way that makes much difference. I don't know what constitutes an 'edit', if I correct 4 typos, 4 spelling errors and add two sentences to an article is that 10 edits or one? Remember also he used to serve as an administrator, which would one assumes require him to well, do some administration.

These days I bet GC writes 'Green Blob' or 'Hockey Stick' more frequently than WMC edits Wikipedia.

Sep 15, 2016 at 8:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

These days I bet GC writes 'Green Blob' or 'Hockey Stick' more frequently than WMC edits Wikipedia.
That may be so, as, as far as I understand, WMC has been restricted, if not outrightly banned, from editing Wikipedia. (However, there are definitely signs of his influence remaining.)

Sep 15, 2016 at 8:59 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, now you are just exaggerating as a deflection technique, to hide from your continued lying on this thread. The credibility of anything you have written before, or may write in the future can be assessed by others, but it does seem that Greens cannot change the colour of their Blobs.

Radical Rodent, it would seem that WMC is still active in rewriting Wikipedia to reflect his contempt for anyone who dares to have an alternative view. It could be embarrassing for any celebrities wheeled out by the Green Party if they were recycling WMC crap, but the BBC have been getting away with it for years.

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Just imagine if it was Mr Connolley's job to edit BH for factual accuracy.

Would take more than 8 edits a day, would be my guess.

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, would that be correcting your lies on behalf of the Green Blob? Or fabricating more lies on your behalf?

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jim Hansen predicted Manhatten would be underwater by now.

One of yours, I believe.

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Golf Charlie

I doubt we two could have a sensible discussion on the MWP and LIA. We look at similar data and come to completely different conclusions.

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

A great embarrassment to the warming-catastrophic community is that 40 years ago the climatology scare was about cooling and onset of an ice age. 

No it wasn't. My goodness, Andrew, you post some utter nonsense on your site.

Dec 4, 2015 at 1:03 PM | ...and Then There's Physics

There is simply no comparison, The 'cooling scare' consisted a few articles in the media; scientific opinion was split, in the literature most papers were about warming but also conceded that prediction/projection was highly uncertain.

Now we have a scientific consensus with support in the high nineties, built on tens of thousands of studies and endorsed by 100% of professional scienttifc association on the planet.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:52 PM | Phil Clarke


And Then There's Bollox (TM Phil Clarke)

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC. It's late. Try Decaff.

Sep 16, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, try truth serum, even if it is years too late.

Thanks for your stunning efforts in demonstrating how dishonest climate science remains, particularly with the involvement of UK Green Party members. Your sponsors must be very proud of you, even if 97% of climate scientists are not.

Sep 16, 2016 at 1:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM 11:17, unfortunately you only see what climate science wants you to look at, or what you want to see.

I do care about the Environment. I did believe in the Hockey Stick.

The cavalier attitude to integrity, demonstrated by Phil Clarke, especially over further evidence of Climate Science's inherent dishonesty in trying to remove the MWP, LIA, and 1970s Ice Age Scare, really should be enough for any disinterested reader.

Without political support, there is no funding for climate science. The UK leads the way in Europe. The USA could go either way. The Germans and now French are putting the debate back into politics. Perhaps those who wish to remain in climate science should abandon their politics, and work out what if anything is worth saving.

When the weather is warmer, people are happier, heathier, better off, better fed etc. A cyclical return to cooler weather is something people fear, and that is just as likely now, as when previously forecast by climate science in the 1970s.

The UK is now having to build an expensive new nuclear power station because of climate scientists, and because of stupid ideas about unreliable non renewable energy that doesn't work. Blame Miliband, blame Mann, blame Connolley, but don't blame the UK population who do not want powercuts, and did not vote for them either.

Sep 16, 2016 at 1:49 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The Americans are going to be asking some awkward political questions, at a sensitive time. Both Trump and Clinton would have been in their 20s during the 1970s Ice Age Scare, and neither can afford to have accusations of amnesia at the moment.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/15/report-1970s-global-cooling-studies-airbrushed-out-of-history/

They could of course look it up on Wikipedia, in which case they will be regurgitating the mind of William M Connolley, which would be more embarrassing than Obama regurgitating Cook's fabricated 97% Consensus, and then the Democrats will also learn not to trust 97% of Climate Science. It will be really useful if the Democrats and Republicans could agree on something that will unite the US public.

Sep 16, 2016 at 2:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie at 1.49am

Well said - exactly what I think; thank you.

Phil, yes you're right, my maths were out by a small factor - I realised after I posted, but the basic point remains the same.

As for AR3 -v- AR5. If AR3 was wrong (according to AR5), why should I trust AR5, when presumably AR6 will in due course say something different?

Sep 16, 2016 at 8:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Progress, Mark, progress.

Newton was 'wrong' about gravity and motion, but we still used his Laws to get men to the Moon.

Sep 16, 2016 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Progress indeed, Phil, but the science is hardly "settled", is it? (If it is, it must have become history instead, as Mrs H keeps telling me).

Sep 16, 2016 at 8:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Phil Clarke.
Any climate scientist (add name) is no Newton.
There is also a difference between being wrong and being "wrong".

Sep 16, 2016 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

More ad hom.

There do not exist two types of science, settled and unsettled, that is an oxymoron. The balance of evidence however, is overwhelming, more than adequate for policy action.

Sep 16, 2016 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Golf Charlie

Your 1.49 post illustrates why any further discussion would be wasted effort. There was no science, just your opinions on conspiracies and politics.

Is your leukaemia getting worse? Are your meds giving problems? The tone of your posts lately makes me worry for your health.

Sep 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

ACK

Climate science does not need a Newton.

No new scientific principles are involved.

AGW can be summarised in three words, cause, effect and consequences.

CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the cause.

The increasing measured temperatures and heat content iare the effects

Sea level rise, ice melt etc are the consequences.

No new physics is required. What is needed is ongoing observation of the changes and tools for forecasting future changes to guide policy makers.

Sep 16, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM. Climate science sure does need a Newton, someone to cut through all the crap attatched to cAGW.

"AGW can be summarised in three words, cause, effect and consequences". Indeed, but add "unproven" to each.

Sep 16, 2016 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

EM, thank you for asking, I have just received another prescription for chemo, but it is working. Don't you think it is dreadful that people were paid to try and hoodwink all people over 50 (?) who could remember the 70s Ice Age Scare?

If Climate Science is reduced to lying about the previous lies, and still can't come up with any evidence, don't you think you should be reassessing your faith? With the history books proving mightier than computer adjustments to science, it is your call.

Phil Clarke probably needs to take something to calm down, and stop lying. His tactics owe more to Lewandowsky Quackery than any recognised pattern of logical reasoning. Those with a low LQ read Skeptical Science.

Sep 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

No new physics is required. What is needed is ongoing observation of the changes and tools for forecasting future changes to guide policy makers.

Sep 16, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Entropic man

So why adjust historical observations to prove the validity of settled science?

Policy makers have adopted the WRONG policies because of the lies and incorrect future forecasts from climate science.

Sep 16, 2016 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie