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 > Merry Christmas, Mr Steyn

gc, Defunding the climatocracy parasites is unlikely to be 100% realized. American politics is famously incremental and full of compromises. It was only under Obama that we experienced a taste of unilateral Executive rule, and many Americans find it a discomforting experience.

Dec 28, 2016 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

geronimo, there is also historical evidence for an LIA and MWP. At school in the 1970s and 80s, it was accepted in history, geography etc that the climate warmed and cooled over decades/centuries. No one questioned Ice Ages, or that it had warmed and cooled and warmed again, before. I remember the concerns about a new ice age in the early 1970s.

Only desperate despots try to erase history, and people's minds and memories. No wonder Climate Scientists are not trusted, and should never be trusted or paid by taxpayers.

UK Taxpayers would prefer the accuracy of weather forecasts to be increased, and extended out to weeks. That would be so much more useful and financially beneficial.

Dec 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You surely cannot be unaware that the hockey stick uptick in the 20th Century was as a result of a single set of bristlecone pines in the South West USA? A series documented by Graybill and Idso who specifically warned against using them as a temperature proxy for the last 150 years.

That is one of the McIntyre Myths demolished by Wahl & Ammann

http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

See section 4.2. Besides, the 'uptick' is confirmed by direct observations.

Or that Briffa's hockey stick was dependent upon one tree in Yamal?

What are you, some kind of parrot?

They [The North panel] go on to say that there is not much confidence in proxies prior to 1650AD and almost none in proxies prior to 900AD, but that some confidence can be drawn where there are multiple proxies indicating the same temperatures.

To quantify that, from the wiki entry on the North report:

At the press conference, North said of the MBH papers that "we do roughly agree with the substance of their findings. There is a small disagreement over exactly how sure we are."[9] All three from the NRC committee panel said it was probable, though not certain, that current warming exceeded any previous peak in the last thousand years.[3] When asked if they could quantify "less confidence" and "plausible", Bloomfield explained that their wording reflected the panel's scientific judgements rather than well defined statistical procedures, and "When we speak of 'less confidence' we're more into a level of sort of 2 to 1 odds, which IPCC, they interpreted 'likely' as that level, roughly 2 to 1 odds or better.

… while Hubert Lamb's reconstruction is based on one set of thermometers in Central England. Tweedledum meet Tweedledee.

Quite. Despite all the bluster, the only actual evidence of a study that contradicts MBH turns out to be a schematic sketch of CET data.

Dec 28, 2016 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

hunter 10:31, I try to be realistic. Cutting 100% of Climate Science funding would be wrong. Cutting the 97% of Climate Scientists out of taxpayer funding, that President Obama told us were right, would be right, because they have proved themselves to be wrong.

Why should taxpayers have to pay, for those who are proud to be wrong, yet remain in denial? The fact that 97% of Climate Scientists don't understand this, and are demanding more money, for maintaining they are not wrong, is a simple demonstration of why 97% of Climate Scientists serve no useful purpose.

Dec 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, you refer to a Wikipedua entry on Climate Science. How do we know it is a fair reflection of fact, and not an unfair reflection of William M Connolley's corruption?

Wikipedia can not be trusted on Climate Science due to the Hockey Teamsters.

Dec 28, 2016 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfcharlie: I wasn't criticising Hubert Lamb course there was medieval warm period, and a little ice age. I was trying to point out, unsuccessfully I fear, that it is impossible to get a reconstruction of the Global or Northern Hemispheric temperatures, and that Hubert Lambs representation had as much validity as Mann's, probably more because he didn't have an agenda.

Dec 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

geronimo, precisely! Lamb never set out to put the world on fire with his work. Mann told the world we were all going to burn up, with one piece of work.

Lamb drew a "sketch", based on the best information available at the time. It did not fit with the most lucrative scenarios envisaged by Mann and colleagues, so he trashed Lamb, with the best adjusted data he could fabricate.

Lamb did review historical evidence. Mann fabricated his, from carefully selected trees.

Lamb did not conclude why, or suggest things were getting worse or better. Mann decided the cause, and concluded everything was going to get worse.

Lamb is largely forgotten, deliberately by some. 97% of Climate Scientists are about to wish they had never heard of Mann.

Dec 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, you refer to a Wikipedua entry on Climate Science. How do we know it is a fair reflection of fact

A sceptic would, of course, read the references.

Dec 28, 2016 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

A sceptic would, of course, read the references.

Dec 28, 2016 at 12:17 PM | Phil Clarke

Actually, a sceptic distrusts anything from the Hockey Teamsters, incluing Mann and Schmidt, especially because they have not denounced fellow Real Climate founder William M Connolley for corrupting Wikipedia.

As and when Mann v. Steyn gets to Court, will either side be calling upon William M Connolley to give evidence, and will either party trust him?

It took the US FBI to unravel the scale of corruption in International Football and Athletics, and presumably President Obama did not intervene. It would be bizarre if US Climate Scientists were found to have deleted records, whilst pretending to preserve them from deletion, having received advice from the Clinton Camp including Podesta.

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heh, 'a minor academic'. The Measure of the Mann. But what inchworm has measured him for an entirely different set of clothes?
==========

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Mann's hockey stick graph was a centrepiece of IPCC 2001 report. And the Al Gore movie. And the IPCC Co-Chair's presentations

Where is it now? Nowhere to be seen.

That says all you need to know.

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

We'll ultimately grant 'bumbling fool' to all the alarmists, for they certainly have bumbled. The true believers will need honest forgiveness, for they know not yet what they have done.
=============

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Martin,

The Mann Hockey Stick was not in Al Gore's movie, but don't feel bad, Montford made the same mistake in one of his 'Key Posts'..

Where is it now? Still being attacked on fora like this, 17 years later, even though it now is just one of many reconstructions telling the same story.

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, why do you keep defending Mann's Hockey Stick? Why did you celebrate Gergis 2016 for proving Mann's Hockey Stick on this Forum?

You seem as choosy and selective as Mann about evidence, when it suits you. The Law, and proper science, do not operate that way.

Dec 28, 2016 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil, Yes, you're right. Gore's graph was a different example of grafting high bandwidth recent temperature measurements on to low bandwidth proxy reconstructions and declaring that we are seeing unprecedented increases. Marcott, more recently, was yet another.

I remember around the time I first saw the hockey stick graph and thinking "This global warming stuff seems serious; I ought to read up about it".

I then read somewhere that the recent rapidly rising portion was from temperature measurements and the long barely changing portion was from proxy reconstructions. Yet this had apparently been presented with straight faces as if there were nothing strange about such doings.

My first thought was that, if a first year student produced a graph from an experiment and explained to their tutor that, just at the point where the shape changed drastically, the student had completely changed the method (and consequently the resolution) of measurement, the tutor would, at very least, give them some serious advice about their attitude to experimental work and its reporting.

Other things stood out as well. The apparent absence of an analysis of the greenhouse effect, with a level of detail and precision at anything more than first-year A-level physics, for example. The reliance on general circulation models that were obviously inherently incapable of being validated; are these people serious?

Slowly things fell into place. I had at that time recently re-read "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman". "Climate science" was simply cargo cult science, albeit on a massive scale. The trappings of science - computer simulations, statistical analyses, conferences, papers - but missing the essence of what science is. Producing the desired result and rejecting anything that questioned that.

Dec 28, 2016 at 3:37 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 PM | Martin A

Your link to Lamb's actual paper was very useful and informative, and demonstrates that Lamb was NOT just taking temperatures from the CET, but matching records of agricultural production (including wine) etc from areas well outside the UK, in addition to archaeological records back to the Vikings, and pre 1066 and all that.

If William M Connolley had to ask Steve McIntyre, it suggests the Hockey Teamsters had not read Lamb's work, and therefore Phil Clarke hadn't either.

Martin A 3:37, lacking your science, I just accepted Mann's Hockey Stick. I had to work out there was something wrong myself, and did not start using the internet to look until summer 2009, a few months before ClimateGate.

Dec 28, 2016 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This is tedious, SkS stuff. It's a dead parrot, the IPCC now admits there was a MWP (although they want to change the name to take out the warming bit to Medieval Climate Anomaly) and a Littlle Ice
Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

Back to the topic, Mann will not go to court, he will be destroyed and he knows it.

Dec 28, 2016 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

I also suspect Mann will not go to trial. I shall wait and see, of course - though I fear it will be a long wait.

Dec 28, 2016 at 7:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson & geronimo,

It seems to me that Mann had to challenge Steyn, to avoid losing face, but never wanted to actually appear in court, for fear of his dirty washing being displayed in court, with cameras rolling.

From this piece at GWPF, it now seems inevitable that some US States may be engaged in legal warfare with Trump.

http://www.thegwpf.com/republican-attorneys-general-eager-to-dismantle-obamas-climate-agenda/

As Trump and the EPA may also be engaged in legal warfare, it would seem sensible, and cost efficient for Trump to have people looking for evidence of fraud/corruption etc, so that Law Enforcement Agencies become involved, rather than writs and Civil Action. DaThe US Green Blob have dug into the "Dirty Tricks Department" to discredit critics, and Podesta has left a slime trail, as revealed by WikiLeaks.

Shukla and the RICO 20 may already be the subject of an investigation, and various Democrat Attorneys General also offered "guidance". Trump may now have reined back from wanting Hillary Clinton in the Dock, but I don't think he excluded anyone else. Past and current staff from the White House, whether Government payroll or not, could be asked some interesting questions under oath.

Exposing opponents to criminal charges would help drain the swamp, rather dramatically, and save on redundancy and pension payments.

Dec 29, 2016 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

Climate Scientists don't come out of this very well.

Dec 29, 2016 at 2:37 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A,, golf charlie

Now I understand.

You are not atatcking the MBH98 graph with its variability and large confidence limits.

You have built an ideal Hocky Stick in your heads and are attacking that straw man instead of the reality.

Thank you. Just when I think that the vein of daftness at BH has ended, you come up in a new absurdity to entertain me

Dec 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, on the contrary, Climate Science is based on lies, and advanced by liars. Mann's Hockey Stick and the corruption of science that produced it, and has been sustaining it ever since, neatly sums up why Trump has had enough.

I can only repeat my suggestion to you from months ago. Are there some good bits of Climate Science that are worth saving?

As soon as US Crime Enforcement Agencies are allowed by a US President to peer into Climate Science, who knows what they will find? When it comes to Fraud and Corruption, involving US Taxpayer Funds, Shukla and the RICO 20, plus all their cheerleaders, should provide an easy start.

Then there are all the people involved in trying to destroy Exxon.

US Democrats and Climate Scientists have been trying to portray Trump as a bad and nasty person. I wonder if they will be proved right?

Dec 29, 2016 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Intriguing but brief post. It seems that some in the US have deleted references to the "settled science" of Global Warming, and consider the Climate Debate is still on-going.

Is this the first sign that "Groupthink" has started to shift back towards honesty about Climate Science, as it does not attract money and power anymore? It certainly lost the Democrats a lot of money and Presidential power.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/29/wisconsin-dnr-revises-position-on-climate-change-removes-caused-by-human-activities-from-great-lakes-webpage/

This would put another big hole in the 97% Consensus, and public support that Climate Science has been depending on, in the run up to any Mann-delayed trial.

Entropic Man and others, have said that Climate Science has "moved on" from the Hockey Stick. This is not true. Meanwhile, US and UK Electorates have "moved-on" from Climate Science, and the Politicians are understanding what loses elections.

Dec 29, 2016 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

just made a significant admission against his interest and doesn't seem to realize it, lol. As to how this plays out, look up "Scopes Monkey Trial". Steyn is, in this case, the science teacher. Mann knows it and will continue dodging the process as long as possible.

Dec 29, 2016 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter