Quote:

Scientist” Michael Mann Loses in Court, Forced to Pay Court Costs — Global Warming Hoax Hit Hardest Back in 2009, “Climategate” was a massive scandal with leaked documents revealing the climate change scam to be what it is, Christopher Booker of the Telegraph back in 2009 slammed the climate alarmists behind the claims of global warming that was proving to be non-existent. Dr. Michael Mann, the scientist that co-authored a famous graph of temperature trends known as the “hockey stick graph” was implicated in the 2009 global warming email scandal This same Dr. Michael Mann, in 2012, sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute over their critique of his work regarding the climate change hoax. Mann even posted to his Facebook page about the lawsuit. He featured a link to his attorney’s website just below the above opening statement. In 2017, Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann committed contempt of court in what was dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”. Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”. This is routine practice for scientific study to determine if the results will stand up against examination.  But Dr. Mann refused to turn over his data. Principia Scientific noted the following: “Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.” 79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and told his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”. even back in 2017 scientists knew the defeat of Dr. Mann would only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”. Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, which accurately shows a significantly warmer Medieval Warm Period with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s. Last week the court case against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money.

Boom!

---

The Science is in  :D

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

How anyone can believe the rubbish that we have been feed on AGW after all that has been revealed is astonishing.

a. climategate

b. the hot spot

c. Correlation

d. disasters, sea levels rising and many more

Its very simple really you do not have to be a professor of physics all you have to do is look into our history to see where CO2 and the average mean global temperature have correlated.

Good hunting.

Wake up people or we will all be taxed for the free air we breathe.

Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::)

The entire southern hemisphere has only had 10 thermometer stations continuously measuring temperatures from 1880 to now. It is physically impossible to accurately measure the temperature of 98,468,497 sq mi with 10 thermometers.

Graphic showing thermometer stations in southern hemisphere 1880-2019
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECmDh2-XoAANy9F.jpg

Phil Jones: “For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there”

"Tom,
        The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
      of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
      5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
      we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
      between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
      very little ship data there.
        Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to
      the ocean.
        You could try doing an additional plot. Download from
      the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if
      is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that
      still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the
      problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real.
      Cheers
      Phil"

part of email 2729

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

Topic after topic about the environment is not put into the environment forum.

I blame Joe Hockey Stick - you?

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

Quote: Scientist” Michael Mann Loses in Court, Forced to Pay Court Costs — Global Warming Hoax Hit Hardest Back in 2009, “Climategate” was a massive scandal with leaked documents revealing the climate change scam to be what it is, Christopher Booker of the Telegraph back in 2009 slammed the climate alarmists behind the claims of global warming that was proving to be non-existent. Dr. Michael Mann, the scientist that co-authored a famous graph of temperature trends known as the “hockey stick graph” was implicated in the 2009 global warming email scandal This same Dr. Michael Mann, in 2012, sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute over their critique of his work regarding the climate change hoax. Mann even posted to his Facebook page about the lawsuit. He featured a link to his attorney’s website just below the above opening statement. In 2017, Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann committed contempt of court in what was dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”. Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”. This is routine practice for scientific study to determine if the results will stand up against examination.  But Dr. Mann refused to turn over his data. Principia Scientific noted the following: “Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.” 79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and told his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”. even back in 2017 scientists knew the defeat of Dr. Mann would only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”. Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, which accurately shows a significantly warmer Medieval Warm Period with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s. Last week the court case against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money. Boom!

Not really because as someone else pointed out, the two graphs you've listed aren't measuring the same thing, so any comparison between the two is pointless.


Boom!

https://i.ibb.co/NWFzr6v/Mannvs-Ball.jpg

For those that are saying these graphs aren’t measuring the same thing, I ask why……?

Mann and associates initially studied tree rings from the northern hemisphere and later extended their research with other proxies most still from the northern hemisphere.

So even though they are reluctant to hand over their work (one paper based on northern hemisphere proxies) to other scientist for scrutiny most of their work is based on proxies from the northern hemisphere.

Mann and associates conveniently got rid of the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

And the IPCC have taken this one paper and made it their own in their weak attempt to prove that AGW is the reason we have heated up all due to man’s burning of fossil fuels.

Funny thing is they (Mann & associates) will not hand over their work to other scientists for scrutiny, you would think that if they wanted to prove their case they would be shoving it under people’s noses, knowing that they are right.

Maybe it’s a case of secret scientist business.....?

There are hundreds of other papers by other scientist that have done their own research with proxies that show the medieval warm period was warmer than today and that we had a mini ice age too, infact many of these papers have proven that the medieval warm period and the little ice age where global and not confined to the northern hemisphere.

That’s hundreds of papers from other prominent scientists.

Yet the IPCC for some strange reason ignores them.

These other scientists that have proven the medieval warm period and the little ice age existed  have put their work out there for all to see, that’s how science works right, you think you have proven something well here it is boys and girls go for it prove me wrong.

So then you have to ask yourself why do you believe in one paper which hasn’t been distributed to the scientific community for observations over hundreds that say the opposite and are out there for all to see as easy as picking fruit of a tree.

Ladies and gentlemen what you are witnessing here is the dishonesty of the alarmists, you have to ask yourself,

WHY WONT THEY HAND OVER THEIR WORK….!

Another question you people should be asking is why has one paper which the computations of have not been freely distributed to the scientific community has been adopted by the IPCC over the hundreds of contradictory papers that are out there, free for all to see.

The IPCC uses one paper which is in dispute with the many hundreds out there as the graphs below show.

They (the IPCC) did show the medieval warm period and the little ice age in there papers up to the year 2001 and then replcade the many with the one.......!?!?

Ask yourselves why is this SO..........!!

Where is the consensus on this issue..........!!!!

https://i.ibb.co/sQHHrv3/medieveal.jpg

This is the real un broken hockey stick.

---

Johnnie wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 7:41pm:

This is the real un broken hockey stick.

You mean the one with the 500 year resolution? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are trying to infer a CO2 level that is far less than the resolution petal.

Then of course CO2 LAGS temperature by 800 years if you believe the ice cores.

lee wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 28th, 2019 at 7:41pm: This is the real un broken hockey stick. You mean the one with the 500 year resolution? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You are trying to infer a CO2 level that is far less than the resolution petal. Then of course CO2 LAGS temperature by 800 years if you believe the ice cores.

There seems to be a trend, the hockey stick trend.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:

There seems to be a trend, the hockey stick trend.

You mean the one whereby Michael E Mann was supposed to show his workings to the court when he sought an adjournment of the defamation trial? The court granted that adjournment on that basis. Michael E Mann subsequently didn't do what he was supposed to do and so the case was lost by him.

Next on the list the court case of Mann V Steyn, where Steyn has countersued Mann. Mann has gone "vewwy,vewwy quiet" (hat tip to Bugs Bunny.) ;)

Of course it could always be a trend caused by a rogue slug crawling across the page.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::)

Oh dear

looks like the climate change deniers have been caught out deceiving again
Europe makes up a very small part of the world  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 28th, 2019 at 9:08pm: There seems to be a trend, the hockey stick trend. You mean the one whereby Michael E Mann was supposed to show his workings to the court when he sought an adjournment of the defamation trial? The court granted that adjournment on that basis. Michael E Mann subsequently didn't do what he was supposed to do and so the case was lost by him. Next on the list the court case of Mann V Steyn, where Steyn has countersued Mann. Mann has gone "vewwy,vewwy quiet" (hat tip to Bugs Bunny.) ;) Of course it could always be a trend caused by a rogue slug crawling across the page.

Even you are starting to question yourself, the evidence is insurmountable.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:24pm:

Europe makes up a very small part of the world

And yet make up most of the statistics Did you look at that picture? 10 whole sites in the Southern Hemisphere between 1880 to now.

That is those stations with a complete record since 1880. ;)

Of course you wouldn't see the bias that would introduce. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

https://i.ibb.co/NWFzr6v/Mannvs-Ball.jpg

Oh, look. Cherrypicked data!  ;D ;D ;D Let's ignore 98% of the earth's surface and just pretend this other 2% is representative of the whole.  ::) ::)

Bam wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:34pm:

Oh, look. Cherrypicked data!     Let's ignore 98% of the earth's surface and just pretend this other 2% is representative of the whole.

So you prefer to cherrypick the Northern half of the world? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course that ignores the papers that show the MWP and LIA also existed in the Southern Hemisphere.

Talk about a cherry pick. You do like your cherry pies. ;)

"Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world, all confirm the existence of a global MWP. Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP, only 2 showed no evidence, and 21 of 22 studies in the Southern Hemisphere showed evidence of Medieval warming."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

lee wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:29pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 28th, 2019 at 9:24pm: Europe makes up a very small part of the world  And yet make up most of the statistics Did you look at that picture? 10 whole sites in the Southern Hemisphere between 1880 to now. That is those stations with a complete record since 1880. ;)

So how many with an incomplete (but still relevant) record?

And thats still 10 more southern hemisphere sites than Europe has  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Quote:

Europe covers about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi), or 2% of the Earth's surface ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 9:51pm:

And thats still 10 more southern hemisphere sites than Europe has

Naturally. Europe doesn't exist in the Southern hemisphere. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

"Climate deniers like to make it seem like the entire weight of evidence for climate change rests on the hockey stick," explains Mann. "And that's not the case. We could get rid of all these reconstructions, and we could still know that climate change is a threat, and that we're causing it." The basic case for global warming caused by humans rests on basic physics--and, basic thermometer readings from around the globe. The hockey stick, in contrast, is the result of a field of research called paleoclimatology (the study of past climates) that, while fascinating, only provides one thread of evidence among many for what we're doing to the planet.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period


There are a dozen or so temperature reconstructions for the northern hemisphere that go back beyond 1600, including the so-called “hockey stick” (see Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong). These studies suggest there were periods of unusual warmth from around AD 900 to AD 1300, but details vary widely in each reconstruction.

In the southern hemisphere, the picture is even more mixed, with evidence of both warm and cool periods around this time. The Medieval Warm Period may have been mostly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature.

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england/

https://i.ibb.co/NWFzr6v/Mannvs-Ball.jpg


Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

https://i.ibb.co/NWFzr6v/Mannvs-Ball.jpg For those that are saying these graphs aren’t measuring the same thing, I ask why……?

It's written on the graphs Ajax. That's why. It takes about 3 seconds to see the first hole in this BS.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

https://i.ibb.co/NWFzr6v/Mannvs-Ball.jpg For those that are saying these graphs aren’t measuring the same thing, I ask why……? [/img]

Its pretty damn easy when you look at the y axes of the graphs. One is temperature anomaly, which in this graph wasn't even spelt correctly and the other is measuring average temperature.

It is hardly broken, except in the fevered minds of denialists who are blinded by ideology and a desperation to reject reality.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013.


Quote:

A version of the MBH99 graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which also drew on Jones et al. 1998 and three other reconstructions to support the conclusion that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was likely to have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year during the past 1,000 years.[8] The graph became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9] In 2003, as lobbying over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol intensified, a paper claiming greater medieval warmth was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.[10] Later in 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 disputing the data used in MBH98 paper. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. Their analysis was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

Why do the denialists always get it so badly (and transparently) wrong?

Here chook chook!

---

When the facts disagree with you, try a cartoon instead.

ewwwww tetchy tetchy  ;D

the denialists are not taking time off from work or school to parade through the streets  stopping others from going about their business....

in fact all they mostly do is argue  on forums lie this........

do they stop pollies traveling the world at the drop of a hat......in emission creating aircraft to have meetings in Large Emission creating cities????....

not that I have seen... :-/


people have a right to challenge scientists my experience is they change their minds 20 years after making a claim......

dont forget we have scientists to thank for the Atom Bomb and WMD..they are not perfect like you want them to be.

Science is a search for truth, not perfection.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 8:47am:

Science is a search for truth, not perfection.

what about PANIC?...you sound like you are in PANIC MODE...

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 8:47am:

Science is a search for truth, not perfection.

I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity???

::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 8:47am:

Science is a search for truth, not perfection.

Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money?

Gnads wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 9:47am:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am: Science is a search for truth, not perfection. Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money?

Well obviously there is going to be a problem when the oil companies start funding fake science, but it is easy enough to poke holes in, as this thread demonstrates.

The MWP MYTH? ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-37.5218842479402%2C32.09119317218028&z=1

Interactive map with notations of studies.
or

https://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mwp-karte-update-1024x758.png

But of course you prefer your 2007 paper to that of 2018. Science in reverse. ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most...

oh noes. phil does science by newspaper reports.

But that must be why Mann failed to present his "evidence" so that it could be viewed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 7:51am:

The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction.

That uncertainty in light blue shows uncertainty of over 1C. Just sayin'. ;)

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 10:53am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:47am: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am: Science is a search for truth, not perfection. Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money? Well obviously there is going to be a problem when the oil companies start funding fake science, but it is easy enough to poke holes in, as this thread demonstrates.

You are talking to imbeciles who will not accept evidence Freediver....They believe NASA, The CSIRO, The IPCC and every scientist who promotes human caused climate change are in a conspiracy....How do you debate stupidity???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 9:13am:

I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity???

You mean like those who give NASA as gold standard.

And yet NASA claim the 97% is true.

Cook et al 2013 32.6% not 97%.

Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%.

Both a long way from 97%.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:13am: I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity??? You mean like those who give NASA as gold standard. And yet NASA claim the 97% is true. Cook et al 2013 32.6% not 97%. Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%. Both a long way from 97%. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=49


Benny Peiser repeated Oreskes survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%.



https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686


Here is the article you are linking to. Reading it, I have zero idea how you could say 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW


Especially when this paragraph states

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position..

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:47am:

Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists

That hasn't stopped NASA claiming otherwise.

NASA also claim Cook et al as scientists not as climate abstracts.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"

"J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024"

"N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618."

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

BTW - You do know skeptical science is a blog by J Cook of Cook et al 2013 fame. Circular logic much. ;)

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:56am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:47am: Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists That hasn't stopped NASA claiming otherwise. NASA also claim Cook et al as scientists not as climate abstracts. "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:" "J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" "N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ BTW - You do know skeptical science is a blog by J Cook of Cook et al 2013 fame. Circular logic much. ;)

Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:52am:

Reading it, I have zero idea how you could say 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW

Sorry. you would have to read her follow up paper.

http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/includes/media/NotwrongClimateChange.MITPress.2007.pdf

Unless of course you believe the 928 papers is just an unusual coincidence.

have a  look at the graph.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:58am:

Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue.

Which then shows the issue is with NASA. Surely they have enough funding to be able to read and analyse papers?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:58am:

lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:56am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:47am: Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists That hasn't stopped NASA claiming otherwise. NASA also claim Cook et al as scientists not as climate abstracts. "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:" "J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" "N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ BTW - You do know skeptical science is a blog by J Cook of Cook et al 2013 fame. Circular logic much. ;) Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue.

No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:05pm:

No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack..

poor phil. The arch conspiracy theorist. What NASA has on its web page the calls for a 97% consensus was put their by conspiracy theorists.

NASA just hasn't taken it down yet. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:05pm:

No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts??? ::) ::) ::)

A lot of scientists don't get funding unless they blame CO2.
That is well documented in the Ice Age Thread
in the Environment forum.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:14pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:05pm: No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts??? ::) ::) ::) A lot of scientists don't get funding unless they blame CO2. That is well documented in the Ice Age Thread in the Environment forum.

So you believe these scientists and organisations like NASA and the CSIRO are in a conspiracy as well....Do you have shares in tin foil mate???

::) ::) ::)

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 7:51am: The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. That uncertainty in light blue shows uncertainty of over 1C. Just sayin'. ;)

You seem reluctant to actually say anything of import. Just saying...

Where will you retreat to next?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:14pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:05pm: No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts??? ::) ::) ::) A lot of scientists don't get funding unless they blame CO2. That is well documented in the Ice Age Thread in the Environment forum. So you believe these scientists and organisations like NASA and the CSIRO are in a conspiracy as well....Do you have shares in tin foil mate??? ::) ::) ::)

I just present evidence and let the readers decide.
I also present evidence for global warming.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:04pm:

You seem reluctant to actually say anything of import. Just saying... Where will you retreat to next?

Poor fd seeing retreat whenever there is advance. It must be your own.

You didn't understand multiple studies support global MWP? ;)

Have you ever tried deciding for yourself before you regurgitate whatever you come across Bobby?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:09pm:

Have you ever tried deciding for yourself before you regurgitate whatever you come across Bobby?

I can't decide - it's too complicated.
Scientists keep finding new closed loop control
systems in our weather & climate.
I don't think anyone understands it.

Or perhaps you didn't understand only 10 sites since 1880 in SH out of 116?

Do you think that would present a bias?

Just imagine all that water with no temperature. ;)

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:08pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:04pm: You seem reluctant to actually say anything of import. Just saying... Where will you retreat to next? Poor fd seeing retreat whenever there is advance. It must be your own. You didn't understand multiple studies support global MWP? ;)

So that would be a retreat to idiocy? Is there something you want you actually say?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:11pm:

lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:08pm: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:04pm: You seem reluctant to actually say anything of import. Just saying... Where will you retreat to next? Poor fd seeing retreat whenever there is advance. It must be your own. You didn't understand multiple studies support global MWP? ;) So that would be a retreat to idiocy?

Seeing as it is your retreat you get the say. ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:14pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:05pm: No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts??? ::) ::) ::) A lot of scientists don't get funding unless they blame CO2. That is well documented in the Ice Age Thread in the Environment forum. So you believe these scientists and organisations like NASA and the CSIRO are in a conspiracy as well....Do you have shares in tin foil mate??? ::) ::) ::)

I suppose you also believe in Fluoride science?
Tobacco science?
DDT science?
Asbestos science?

Gnads wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:59pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:14pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:05pm: No point trying to debate a conspiracy theorist Bojack....They believe Global Warming is a conspiracy between scientists and scientific organisations to shut down fossil fuel (No explanation as to why they would lie)....How do you debate stupidity that does not respond to facts??? ::) ::) ::) A lot of scientists don't get funding unless they blame CO2. That is well documented in the Ice Age Thread in the Environment forum. So you believe these scientists and organisations like NASA and the CSIRO are in a conspiracy as well....Do you have shares in tin foil mate??? ::) ::) ::) I suppose you also believe in Fluoride science? Tobacco science? DDT science? Asbestos science?

Another conspiracy....Tell us all about it....(backs away slowly)???

::) ::) ::)

Insanity is just what we call stupidity when it doesn't make sense.
Josh Lieb, I am a Genius of Unspeakable Evil and I Want to be Your Class President, 2009

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 12:03pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:58am: Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue. Which then shows the issue is with NASA. Surely they have enough funding to be able to read and analyse papers?

So then why are you posting that this is evidence of no consensus, when clearly the article doesn't say that at all.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 2:18pm:

So then why are you posting that this is evidence of no consensus, when clearly the article doesn't say that at all.

Funny isn't it. The claim is for 100% of scientists by Oreskes and NASA.

But her later paper puts the lie to that. Pointing out that only 24.8% of papers said that. And of course papers does not equal climate scientists.

And of course the same applies to Cook et al paper, where 97% of climate scientists is claimed. 32.6% of abstracts is not climate scientists.

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 3:54pm:

And of course the same applies to Cook et al paper, where 97% of climate scientists is claimed. 32.6% of abstracts is not climate scientists.

And of course, as I have already pointed out to you, to try and classify abstracts with no position on human induced climate change to be against human induced climate change is deceitful at best and lying at worst.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 4:39pm:

And of course, as I have already pointed out to you, to try and classify abstracts with no position on human induced climate change to be against human induced climate change is deceitful at best and lying at worst.

No petal. No position is no position. That is neither for nor against. And I haven't tried to classify them as such.

You did notice that I didn't say that x% said that AGW didn't exist?

So the figures are -

No Position - 66.4%

Endorsed AGW - 32.6%

Rejected AGW 0.7%

Uncertain 0.3%

And from Cook et al

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Now "expressing an opinion"  is either for or against. "Uncertain" doesn't represent a "position".

So you have mendaciously asserted I have said something.

Of course perhaps all those that didn't state a position were for. But the onus would be on you to prove such. Cook et al certainly didn't.

And again that was only ABSTRACTS. NOT "Climate Scientists". You do understand the difference don't you?

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 1:13pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:11pm: lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:08pm: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 1:04pm: You seem reluctant to actually say anything of import. Just saying... Where will you retreat to next? Poor fd seeing retreat whenever there is advance. It must be your own. You didn't understand multiple studies support global MWP? ;) So that would be a retreat to idiocy? Seeing as it is your retreat you get the say. ;)

Is there something you want you actually say Lee? About the topic perhaps? If you stretch yourself you could make a whole sentence out of it.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

Is there something you want you actually say Lee? About the topic perhaps? If you stretch yourself you could make a whole sentence out of it.

You are doing quite well on your own  petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The OP is BS, and despite fervent posting, the denialists have been unable to improve on it.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

Quote: Scientist” Michael Mann Loses in Court, Forced to Pay Court Costs — Global Warming Hoax Hit Hardest Back in 2009, “Climategate” was a massive scandal with leaked documents revealing the climate change scam to be what it is, Christopher Booker of the Telegraph back in 2009 slammed the climate alarmists behind the claims of global warming that was proving to be non-existent. Dr. Michael Mann, the scientist that co-authored a famous graph of temperature trends known as the “hockey stick graph” was implicated in the 2009 global warming email scandal This same Dr. Michael Mann, in 2012, sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute over their critique of his work regarding the climate change hoax. Mann even posted to his Facebook page about the lawsuit. He featured a link to his attorney’s website just below the above opening statement. In 2017, Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann committed contempt of court in what was dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”. Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”. This is routine practice for scientific study to determine if the results will stand up against examination.  But Dr. Mann refused to turn over his data. Principia Scientific noted the following: “Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.” 79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and told his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”. even back in 2017 scientists knew the defeat of Dr. Mann would only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”. Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, which accurately shows a significantly warmer Medieval Warm Period with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s. Last week the court case against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money. Boom!

I always say that everything moves in Tides and I can relate to the lower Graph as the more accurate.
We have Ice Ages.
We have Fire Ages.
We have High Tides.
We have Low Tides.

One Member showed a graph of the Temperatures over a span of millions of years and 'Humanity' since the time of primitive Hominids and far earlier - have been in a Greater Ice Age of below average temperature.
Our Global Temperature even now does not get close to the 'Eon Average' of being warmer.

The biggest Scam of all is that the DARK SIDE of SCIENCE is now emerging and revealing itself like a Sith Lord to try and convince the World that it is the fault of Man (sinner!) and that something must be done to stop the Warming!
Of course - 'Science' (The Force) will get paid to 'save us' from this catastrophe!  ::) They will attain the 'Power' over the Planet to fight 'nature' (Jedi) and manipulate the World's Weather and Environment to their own desire.  >:(

DARK SIDE OF SCIENCE (SITH)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::)

I wonder why no one has replied to this?   Does Cereal Brain just want reality to disappear in his conspiranut beliefs?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 3:54pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 2:18pm: So then why are you posting that this is evidence of no consensus, when clearly the article doesn't say that at all. Funny isn't it. The claim is for 100% of scientists by Oreskes and NASA. But her later paper puts the lie to that. Pointing out that only 24.8% of papers said that. And of course papers does not equal climate scientists. And of course the same applies to Cook et al paper, where 97% of climate scientists is claimed. 32.6% of abstracts is not climate scientists.

As the Oreskes article pointed out, they were taking no position, because the articles didn't warrant taking a position.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 4:39pm:

lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 3:54pm: And of course the same applies to Cook et al paper, where 97% of climate scientists is claimed. 32.6% of abstracts is not climate scientists. And of course, as I have already pointed out to you, to try and classify abstracts with no position on human induced climate change to be against human induced climate change is deceitful at best and lying at worst.

It's complete BS, just like all the other crap the denialists are desperate to believe.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 11:54am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 4:39pm: lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 3:54pm: And of course the same applies to Cook et al paper, where 97% of climate scientists is claimed. 32.6% of abstracts is not climate scientists. And of course, as I have already pointed out to you, to try and classify abstracts with no position on human induced climate change to be against human induced climate change is deceitful at best and lying at worst. It's complete BS, just like all the other crap the denialists are desperate to believe.

What type of denialist?
There are 2 types:

Global warming and global cooling denialists.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 9:33am:

As the Oreskes article pointed out, they were taking no position, because the articles didn't warrant taking a position.

That must be why NASA claims it as one of the 97% paper. ;)


Quote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Now IF you click on the asterisk (*) after the highlighted section, it takes you to those papers that meet or exceed 97%, in their opinion.

It is in the list under Reference 1.

So tell us again - Why does NASA do that? Don't they have the wherewithal to read and analyse the papers they are referencing?

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 11:54am:

It's complete BS, just like all the other crap the denialists are desperate to believe.

Another who can't read plain English. Where a paper is for or against it must somehow be "for". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2019 at 11:54am: It's complete BS, just like all the other crap the denialists are desperate to believe. Another who can't read plain English. Where a paper is for or against it must somehow be "for". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What are you trying to say Lee? You could at least try to make sense.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 5:47pm:

You could at least try to make sense.

That would be completely lost on you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 6:01pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2019 at 5:47pm: You could at least try to make sense. That would be completely lost on you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That seems to be a common problem for the denialists. They can barely string a coherent sentence together, but it is everyone else's fault that no one understands them, let alone takes them seriously.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 6:22pm:

That seems to be a common problem for the denialists.

Can you name someone who denies climate changes? Or even someone who says man has no impact on climate? Or do you just repeat crap you hear? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 6:22pm:

They can barely string a coherent sentence together, but it is everyone else's fault that no one understands them, let alone takes them seriously.

That would seem to make you a denialist. You are not taken seriously. ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 8:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 5:35pm: Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::) I wonder why no one has replied to this?   Does Cereal Brain just want reality to disappear in his conspiranut beliefs?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Why Brian I have already addressed your and the other people’s concern claiming that the graphs are measuring different things.

But are they…..???..........how sure are you about this……..???

Both graphs are constructed from proxies in or for the northern hemisphere.

Mann & associates hockey stick graph goes back about 1000 years.

The graph showing the medieval warm period MWP and little ice age LIA (let’s call this Balls graph for simplicity) also goes back approximately the same number of years.

Both use proxies from the northern hemisphere and are about measuring temperature anomalies for the northern hemisphere.

BUT many of the scientific studies / papers that make up Balls graph also claim that the MWP / LIA was in fact global.

The MWP/LIA graph was reconstructed from the many scientific studies / papers that existed prior to the AGW religion / madness going viral and was accepted as the norm for all those many years, we are talking about hundreds of studies / papers here.

That’s why the IPCC had the MWP / LIA graph in its First assessment report in 1990 and stayed there for 10 years, in 2001 it was replaced with Mann & associates hockey stick, no reason was given.

So I ask you and the others if consensus rules AGW then where is the consensus on this issue where you have hundreds of studies / papers vs a hand full.

Even more important is why Mann and associates have not presented their findings for scrutiny by the scientific community till this day how about you believers answer that one for me.

Why won’t Mann and associates show their findings like the many scientists who form Balls graph have done, you want to read their work it’s available.

TSK.....TSK........ :D

https://i.ibb.co/KwMJ7p0/medieveal.jpg

Quote:

BUT many of the scientific studies / papers that make up Balls graph also claim that the MWP / LIA was in fact global.

Not just many. Pretty much all of them say it was a global event, or at least far broader than Europe. Some places got colder. Europe got hotter. The lie (or the idiocy depending on the person) from the denialist camp is that it was a case of global warming.

Just another nugget in a constant stream of BS from the denialists. And remember folks, "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 10:11am:

Quote: BUT many of the scientific studies / papers that make up Balls graph also claim that the MWP / LIA was in fact global. Not just many. Pretty much all of them say it was a global event, or at least far broader than Europe. Some places got colder. Europe got hotter. The lie (or the idiocy depending on the person) from the denialist camp is that it was a case of global warming. Just another nugget in a constant stream of BS from the denialists. And remember folks, "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".

If you have nothing to say its better if you don't say anything...... :D ;) :)

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 10:13am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2019 at 10:11am: Quote: BUT many of the scientific studies / papers that make up Balls graph also claim that the MWP / LIA was in fact global. Not just many. Pretty much all of them say it was a global event, or at least far broader than Europe. Some places got colder. Europe got hotter. The lie (or the idiocy depending on the person) from the denialist camp is that it was a case of global warming. Just another nugget in a constant stream of BS from the denialists. And remember folks, "frost this morning, therefor no global warming". If you have nothing to say its better if you don't say anything...... :D ;) :)

I got the crayons out for you.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 10:11am:

The lie (or the idiocy depending on the person) from the denialist camp is that it was a case of global warming.

And now of course it is Global Warming  based on an assessment of Global Temperatures, even though there were only 10 long term stations in the Southern Hemisphere.

Good golly Miss Molly, talk about biased. And then of course if you look at the NOAA maps they show huge grey areas where there in't no reading.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/map-land-sfc-mntp-201907-t.png

Not only Arctic and Antarctic but also large parts of South America and Southern Africa.
But beyond that what you are saying it was regional warming not global,

But what about regional cooling? Shouldn't that be treated the same way?

"Regional cooling in a warming world: Recent temperature trends in
the southeast Pacific and along the west coast of subtropical South
America (1979–2006)"

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JD010519

Then of course in the model world -

"Global and regional surface cooling in a warming climate: a multi-model analysis"

"A central issue in climate research in recent years has been the apparent paradox that global surface temperature has not been increasing in tandem with increasing emissions of human-induced greenhouse gases. This paradox has generated a lot of attention among researchers (e.g., Easterling and Wehner 2009; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011; Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011; Santer et al. 2011, 2014; Trenberth and Fasullo 2013; Huber and Knutti 2014; Maher et al. 2014; Risbey et al. 2014; Watanabe et al. 2014) and the general public (Tollefson 2014). It has also been used to cast doubts about the reliability of climate research in general and climate models in particular (Showstack 2014) since the ensemble mean of the models do not reproduce the so-called surface temperature hiatus."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2811-y

So it is apparent this paradox is a cause of concern.

But they continue. -

"We therefore include four main emission scenarios for the twentyfirst century. These range from a high, business-as-usual, scenario (RCP8.5), two intermediate scenarios with maximum emissions occurring around 2080 (RCP6.0) and 2040 (RCP4.5), and a low-emission scenario (RCP2.6). RCP2.6 is constructed to be in line with the so-called two-degree target (Rijsberman and Swart 1990; Jaeger and Jaeger 2011). The observed   CO2 -emissions indicate that we are currently tracking the RCP 8.5 scenario (Quéré et al. 2014). If continued, this will lead to almost a threefold increase of present day   CO2 -emissions by the end of the century."

ibid

Here they maintain their philosophy of pretending RCP 8.5 is a "business-as-usual" scenario.

Climate Cchange^TM must be the only discipline studied where they use an ultra-low, a mid low, and a "business-as-usual" scenario.

In the real world they use a low, a "business-as-usual"  and a high scenario.

Only in climate science. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Looks like the temperature is going up to me.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg


freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 7:51am:

It is hardly broken, except in the fevered minds of denialists who are blinded by ideology and a desperation to reject reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013. Quote: A version of the MBH99 graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which also drew on Jones et al. 1998 and three other reconstructions to support the conclusion that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was likely to have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year during the past 1,000 years.[8] The graph became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9] In 2003, as lobbying over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol intensified, a paper claiming greater medieval warmth was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.[10] Later in 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 disputing the data used in MBH98 paper. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. Their analysis was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions. Why do the denialists always get it so badly (and transparently) wrong?

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 11:38am:

Looks like the temperature is going up to me. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/k9SVKL7/sheep.png

Let us know if you have any trouble understanding the plot.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 10:06am:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 5:35pm: Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::) I wonder why no one has replied to this?   Does Cereal Brain just want reality to disappear in his conspiranut beliefs?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why Brian I have already addressed your and the other people’s concern claiming that the graphs are measuring different things. But are they…..???..........how sure are you about this……..???

Very.  They have different titles indicating they are measuring different things.  QED.   ::)

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 11:53am:

Let us know if you have any trouble understanding the plot. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

I want to know two things from you.

1. What happened to the MWP and the LIA in the hockey stick they aren't there, why did they diappear of the radar.

2. Why wont Mann and associates show the scientific community their findings, you know like Newton presented his principia mathematica to Cambridge university for confirmation by other notable scientist.

That's all I want you to answer for me.

https://i.ibb.co/fMyyVYL/iceage-01.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 11:56am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2019 at 10:06am: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 5:35pm: Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::) I wonder why no one has replied to this?   Does Cereal Brain just want reality to disappear in his conspiranut beliefs?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why Brian I have already addressed your and the other people’s concern claiming that the graphs are measuring different things. But are they…..???..........how sure are you about this……..??? Very.  They have different titles indicating they are measuring different things.  QED.   ::)

Albums have titles they're still all albums though..... :D

https://i.ibb.co/3BqSKmr/fm.jpg

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 11:53am:

Let us know if you have any trouble understanding the plot. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999? The one used by the IPCC in 2001 and quickly dropped? That one? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - Where is your response to regional cooling in the face of regional warming?

How about looking at the graphs in Bradley (the same one) and Hughes 1993. Very interesting. ;)

"’Little Ice Age’ summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends"

http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1177%2F095968369300300409

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 12:00pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2019 at 11:53am: Let us know if you have any trouble understanding the plot. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg I want to know two things from you. 1. What happened to the MWP and the LIA in the hockey stick they aren't there, why did they diappear of the radar.

That's what people have been explaining to you for the last six pages. Hint, the answer is in those two plots in the first post that, as it turned out, were actually plotting two different things. Or you could refer back to when I got the crayons out in the last few posts. It's the same answer when the denialists ask how the globe could possibly be warming if they had frost this morning.

You do understand anomalies are just those guesses that sit on top of a temperature range (base line temperature)? Therefore they should be a good fit.

And yes petal you can add anomalies to temperature.

https://learn.arcgis.com/en/projects/explore-future-climate-projections/

If it can be done with projections it can certainly be done with published data. ;)

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2019 at 12:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 1st, 2019 at 11:56am: Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2019 at 10:06am: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 5:35pm: Err, your two graphs are measuring different things.  Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".   You are comparing apples with oranges.  Naughty, naughty!   ::) I wonder why no one has replied to this?   Does Cereal Brain just want reality to disappear in his conspiranut beliefs?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why Brian I have already addressed your and the other people’s concern claiming that the graphs are measuring different things. But are they…..???..........how sure are you about this……..??? Very.  They have different titles indicating they are measuring different things.  QED.   ::) Albums have titles they're still all albums though..... :D

How does that negate what I stated, Ajax?  Graphs have titles describing what they represent - that way they tell the reader what they are looking at.  Albums are just collections of tunes created by an artiste.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

Mann's is talking about, "Temperature anomaly relative to 1960-1990" compared to the 20th century and Ball's is talking about, "Climate Changes in Europe over the last 2000 years".

No, Mann's reconstruction uses the BASELINE of 1961-1990. (Although he got it wrong and wrote 1960-1990). That is the entire record is an anomaly of that temperature, not just the 20th century.

Even if Ball had used a different climate period eg 1951-1980 (as used by NASA) the only thing one has to do is move it to move the baseline temperature you prefer up or down to match as it is only the anomalies changing. As they like to tell us.

"The 1951–1980 mean is 14.2 °C (57.6 °F)"

"The Earth's average surface absolute temperature for the 1961–1990 period has been derived by spatial interpolation of average observed near-surface air temperatures from over the land, oceans and sea ice regions, with a best estimate of 14 °C (57.2 °F).[30] The estimate is uncertain, but probably lies within 0.5 °C of the true value."

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

So there should be very little flattening of the graph.

Hockey stick is, of course, fine.

Lots of crap spouted about this by the usual suspects.

Reality:

Quote:

On the health front, the plea to toss the case notes that Ball, born in 1938, “suffered coronary heart failure” in 2017, after “quintuple bypass surgery” ten years prior, in addition to having Type 2 Diabetes. Apparently being old is a defense? Ball’s attorney also added that his website doesn’t show up in at least 92% of searches for Dr. Mann, and that it has “low popularity.” What this all means: no, the court didn’t rule that Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud. And no, it has nothing to do with Mann supposedly refusing to release the data for deniers to double check. Again, Mann took to Twitter to explain that “The ‘Hockey Stick’ data & code are all available & have been for more than a decade,” with a link to the FTP site that’s hosted the data since, by the looks of it, at least 2003. And for whether or not the hockey stick, showing a rapid increase in temperatures in the modern era, has broken, Mann points out that multiple other teams have come to the same general conclusion. Far from being a clear win for the deniers, the ruling appears to be more a judgement of the state of Tim Ball: a broken down old man, who’s lucky that no one takes his conspiratorial and accusatory ramblings seriously. And that’s what his own defense said about him!

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory


Quote:

Craig Thomler @craigthomler Replying to @JamesRider3 @PolAnimalAus and 48 others Mann fully complied with all disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents. No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Mann surrender any data or any documents to Ball for any purpose.

https://twitter.com/Andrewemcameron/status/1167273256950423553/photo/1

Or: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDL81e1WwAA-D8J?format=jpg&name=small if not on Twitter

Mann’s data and code has been online and available for years (since 2003 at least,) right here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

Is that from John Cook blog? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh look the monk is trying to resurrect the dead.

So tell us all about Mann's non-contempt in terms of 2019 instead of 2017.

So we have Daily Kos - from US Democrats

And a facebook page.