Dec 9, 2019 at 12:54 PM John Shade

Craig Kelly is very polite. He refrained from calling Guterres a liar. He simply confirms "The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm", as Phil Clarke has been doing.

Neither the UN nor the IPCC should complain if Trump cuts their funding. They will anyway.

I quite liked this bit. It does tend to suggest that 97% of Climate Science is not based on Science. Phil Clarke likes to call people liars, but hasn't thought that through either. The levels of denial necessary to be Hockey Teamsters, worshipping the cracked, split, fragment wreckage of the Holy Hockey Stick are remarkable. And they demand money for it too.

"When we consider the epistemic character of the public debate I think we have to conclude that it has been corrupted by the corruption in climate science. It is, for example, quite extraordinary that the IPCC should be publishing the 2007 report about which its own expert reviewer, Andrew Lacis, should comment:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.[7]"

Um, Lacis was actually concerned the Exec Summary was too equivocal, that is, it did not go far enough:

My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as “very likely” at the 90 percent probability level. It would seem that the veracity of the human-induced warming would hinge on establishing the pedigree of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. On this point, the IPCC report is crystal clear. Pages 137-140 of IPCC AR4 describe high-precision in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, documenting the steady increase in CO2 along with its characteristic seasonal fluctuation. These measurements, supplemented by analyses of air bubbles trapped in ice core samples, show unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of 277 ppm in 1750 to present day concentrations that are approaching 390 ppm.

The IPCC report also shows the corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen, thus providing irrefutable verification that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is linked directly to fossil fuel oxidation. In Chapter 7, the IPCC report states it clearly: “the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era are caused by human activities”. Undoubtedly, volcanic eruptions have contributed some atmospheric CO2, but this can only be miniscule as neither the 1991 Pinatubo eruption (largest of the century), nor the 1986 Lake Nyos CO2 eruption that killed thousands, so much as registered a blip in the Mauna Loa CO2 record.

In view of all this, the IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 Executive Summary states that: “It is likely (66 percent probability) that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century.” How can this be considered anything other than inaccurate and misleading?

Source:https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/lacis-at-nasa-on-role-of-co2-in-warming/?auth=login-email

The essayist (a Professor of Philosophy) got that and much else wrong, indeed these blog posts read like they were written who has by someone who has not really done his homework. However as he makes clear :-

Whether the data or content of these emails tell us anything about global warming is not an issue I am concerned with.

Someone a little more familiar with the detail ....

Many people are weighing in on the 10 year anniversary of ‘Climategate’ – the Observer, a documentary on BBC4 (where I was interviewed), Mike at Newsweek – but I’ve struggled to think of something actually interesting to say.

It’s hard because even in ten years almost everything and yet nothing has changed. The social media landscape has changed beyond recognition but yet the fever swamps of dueling blogs and comment threads has just been replaced by troll farms and noise-generating disinformation machines on Facebook and Twitter. The nominally serious ‘issues’ touched on by the email theft – how robust are estimates of global temperature over the instrumental period, what does the proxy record show etc. – have all been settled in favor of the mainstream by scientists plodding along in normal science mode, incrementally improving the analyses, and yet they are still the most repeated denier talking points.

- -Gavin Schmidt

Quite.

Clarke, you ignore all points and questions.

Then you quote Schmidt.

SMH

This Dr Schmidt?

:-)

Dec 9, 2019 at 10:11 PM Phil Clarke

You are still in denial about your lying, and that of Hockey Teamsters.

Is Russian dope testing modelled on Climate Science Peer Review?
Are Climate Science Peer Reviewers dopey?

The nominally serious ‘issues’ touched on by the email theft – how robust are estimates of global temperature over the instrumental period, what does the proxy record show etc. – have all been settled in favor of the mainstream by scientists plodding along in normal science mode, incrementally improving the analyses, and yet they are still the most repeated denier talking points.

- -Gavin Schmidt

Quite.

Dec 9, 2019 at 5:43 PM Phil Clarke

Quite? A lot of lies?

Gavin is coy

Dec 9, 2019 at 10:47 PM John Shade

Gavin is not very good at honesty either, typical for a Hockey Teamster

https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/03/gavins-mystery-man/
https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/

"They call the skeptics 'Contrarians', the phrase 'Deniers' not having come into use yet, and say they have a right-wing agenda as well as taking the oil money which they would rather have themselves. Any editor or publisher who allows the Contrarians' research to be aired is suspect too. Anyone who casts doubt on the theory of man-made global warming is, circularly, disparaged as being a known doubter of the theory of man-made global warming.

In mail 1057944829 in July 2003, Chris de Freitas, an editor at Climate Research, a journal which has lately published two major papers by skeptics, entertainingly asks them where they get off with regard to this: 'I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. ... Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists who are well known for their support for the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate?'

They write to Otto Kinne, publisher of Climate Research, to bitch about De Freitas, but Kinne backs him up. They decide Kinne, too, must have an agenda.http://www.di2.nu/foia/1057941657.txt Says Michael Mann:"

https://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

"They write to Otto Kinne, publisher of Climate Research, to bitch about De Freitas, but Kinne backs him up. They decide Kinne, too, must have an agenda.They write to Otto Kinne, publisher of Climate Research, to bitch about De Freitas, but Kinne backs him up. They decide Kinne, too, must have an agenda.http://www.di2.nu/foia/1057941657.txt Says Michael Mann:" Says Michael Mann:"

Says Michael Mann:" Says Michael Mann:"

Climate Science rigged Peer Review from the start, and the investigations after ClimateGate
Russians Dope Testers were more thorough in the manner in which everything was designed to be rigged

Dec 10, 2019 at 6:22 AM golf charlie
Or have I underestimated the corruption of Climate Science Dope Testing because they assumed everyone (but Hockey Teamsters) was a dope?

De Freitas may complain about his poor treatment, but he is the author of his own misfortune. It is demonstrably the case that he caused a seriously flawed paper to be published in Climate Research, so bad in fact that half of the journal board (not him, naturally) resigned in protest at the failure of editorial standards. He can hardly expect such behaviour to go unnoticed and unremarked.

As the EPA found in response to a petition from a coal company:

The context to the petitioners’ arguments is the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper published in the journal Climate Research. This paper was subsequently heavily and broadly criticized by the scientific community in peer-reviewed journals. A scientific rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas (2003) was published in the AGU journal Eos (Mann et al., 2003). The publication of this paper revealed problems with the peer review process at Climate Research, which eventually resulted in the resignation of three people on the editorial board when they could not come to an agreement with the publisher on how to revamp the peer-review process in the wake of the controversy (Kinne, 2003). Petitioners assume that because the resignations occurred after the CRU e-mail authors threatened to boycott the journal, the resignations must be a result of that threat. However, Climate Research publisher Otto Kinne later admitted in a statement published in the journal that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published, expressed regret that the journal had lost three editors due to the controversy, and promised to strengthen the journals’ peer review policies (Kinne, 2003).

Thus, the petitioners’ claims that it was the actions of the CRU e-mail authors that resulted in changes to the editorial board of Climate Research are without merit. It is clear from the quoted e-mails that the CRU scientists and their colleagues believed that there was a failure of the peer review process at Climate Research that allowed a scientifically flawed paper to be published. Subsequent events have demonstrated that their views were justified; as shown by the publication of Mann et al.’s (2003) scientific rebuttal. It is not inappropriate or uncommon for scientists to challenge the validity of each ’others work. It is well within the norms of the scientific community to write and publish comments or responses and otherwise challenge published journal articles if one can demonstrate that there are scientific insufficiencies. Such challenges are indeed essential to the progress of science. The critical issue is that such challenges should be focused on scientific and factual grounds. The scientists reacted reasonably by publishing a rebuttal to the Soon and Baliunas paper in a different peer reviewed journal (Mann et al., 2003).

Science is a community-based professional enterprise in which it is expected and appropriate that researchers choose in which journals to publish, as well as recommend to their peers journals in which to publish or not publish. In this case, the bottom line is that the underlying science at issue has been shown to be flawed. The scientists’ actions were focused on this lack of scientific merit and the process that lead to it, and not an attempt to distort the science or the scientific literature. We disagree with the petitioner’s claim that the CRU e-mail authors acted like “activists” and not like scientists. Their focus was clearly on the scientific merits of the study at issue and the scientific integrity of the peer review process. There is no evidence to suggest that the CRU e-mail authors were attempting to manipulate the peer-reviewed literature. If anything, their actions aimed to police the peer review process and rectify a problem that threatened its scientific integrity.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100806000218/http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/response-volume3.pdf

Stormy Times

Rather amusing that Pielke Sr thinks he gets to set homework for Government employees. Especially when his questions are themselves flawed.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/

Hah. Roger's Question 7:

The book

DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rightful Place of Science Series
Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes by Roger Pielke, Jr.

discusses the role of changes in climate in recent decades on disasters.

Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?

Drop what you're doing, read my boy's book and let me know your thoughts, or I'll write a snarky piece on a TV weatherman's website accusing you of 'running away'.

Class.

Phil. I don't recall Nature editors being chastised by their Boards for publishing a succession of crap papers, many of which had to be withdrawn (for extreme crapness). But poor De Freitas brought it all upon himself did he? Double standards Phil?