Mar 13, 2020 at 9:50 PM Phil Clarke

Have you found any good bits of Climate Science yet, that should be retained before the rest is binned?

Says he doesn't condone their methods and then goes on to defend them .... right-oh...

Presumes to attribute my information resources (trivially wrong actually....)

As far as the utterly batshit Roger Hallam is concerned I suggest you do a bit more reading yourself....

XR is an alarmist cult who seem to revel in causing small outrages .... since they are TEOTWAWKI -ists it seems inevitable that some fragile child will get swept along and do something unfortunate.

moral poverty dressed up as virtue

Have you managed to find any actual examples of the 'playground cat-calling' language that you alleged,

That's a no, then.

Oh, dear. Another bunch of once-highly-respected scientists proving themselves to be frauds…

No, that's just the same list you linked to Mar 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM on the Climate Sceptics Group thread. It's just hosted on a different site. Once again - do you actually read this stuff before linking? Denier resources (even bogus ones) are so scarce they tend to get copied widely.

New List (Electoverse): 46 “CLIMATE CHANGE” DENYING STATEMENTS MADE BY FORMER IPCC EXPERTS

Old List (Climatism) 46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC

As I pointed out on the other thread, it's largely bogus:the quotes are selective, very old or in some case never actually said or written by the supposed author. I detailed problems with the quotes from Mike Hulme, Andrew Lacis, Dr Lucka Bogataj and Fred Singer on the other thread. This time round I chose at random the quote from Dr Georg Kaser, who is quoted as saying “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

But if you actually read what he wrote, he was talking about the incorrect date of Himalayan glacier melt stated in IPCC AR3 WG2 (corrected here) not the number. Whoever compiled the list has just fabricated the text in brackets to exaggerate the effect.

Also, the term 'IPCC experts' is misleading. Few of these people were ever selected to contribute to the IPCC reports, and those have largely been misrepresented or quoted out of context. The IPCC operate an open review process where anyone (eg you, or me) can submit review comments. Some who have done so have self-described as 'IPCC reviewer' (or in Lord Monckton's case 'Expert IPCC Reviewer', LOL) and I suspect this is what has happened here.

Footnote: Anyone who does sign up as a reviewer of an IPCC report is requested not to quote from the draft until it is signed off. Each page is marked 'Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute'.

Stephen McIntyre registered as a reviewer of the 2013 report and promptly quoted from the draft on his blog, then got all faux outraged and lawyerly when the IPCC politely asked him to take the material down, a request he refused, AFAIK.

LOL. The BBC use the symbol (R) to indicate a programme is a repeat. Perhaps you could start doing something similar?

Zombie Myth

Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.” After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was “fabricated” or “faked.” On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s” but scientists had “faked the numbers” :

However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made “major errors in his analysis” and criticized the implication that “numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way.”

In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA, which both maintain temperature records that use slightly different methods but show close agreement, have publicly documented the peer-reviewed adjustments they make to raw data. NCDC states that the “most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler,” and so it must correct this cool bias as well as other biases that, for example, result from moving temperature stations.

Hint: Linking to Stephen Goddard aka Tony Heller is rock-bottom, even in denial terms, this is a man that even Anthony Watts showed the door.

NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Nor you, RR, nor you.

Phil Clarke, do you think that the onus is on Mann to prove his Hockey Stick?

Help! Emoji infestation !!! 😷😃😥😞😬😏😂😝😜

NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Mar 14, 2020 at 12:40 PM Phil Clarke

Do they Peer Review a lot of Climate Science?

If every cloud has a silver lining, then I hope that Coronavirus will instill some realisation into politicians and the public about the enforced and permanent austerity of living standards and lifestyles that the Green Blob are demanding, based on Mann's Hockey Stick of failed predictions that he has been unable to defend in Court.

Another look at data to be discussed (or just dismissed, depending on your choice 😏).

Yeah, I saw that at WUWT. (check out the comments from Stephen Mosher) Did you watch it? Sources include Geocraft.com (aka Plant Fossils of West Virginia, say what?) and your friend Tony Heller. He also drops in Easterbrook's fave, the GISP2 ice core, abused as ever. At 5:30 he uses the US record as a proxy for the whole globe, and up pops the CO2 lags temperature and so cannot be the cause myth.

Et cetera. Basically a collection of denier greatest hits, at 35 minutes he flatly denies the existence of ocean acidification, describing it as 'made up' and 'makes no sense to ocean scientists'.

What do you say RR? You posted the video, do you agree that Ocean Acidification is unreal? Here's a 68 page report from the Royal Society to help you decide.

Mar 16, 2020 at 11:02 AM Phil Clarke
Can you explain when seawater is acid?

Mar 13, 2020 at 9:50 PM Phil Clarke

Have you found any good bits of Climate Science yet, that should be retained before the rest is binned?

Mar 13, 2020 at 10:47 PM golf charlie

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by
making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of
the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have
absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by
fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations
based on measurements of the surface oceans and our
knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake
of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface
seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions.

If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue
to rise on current trends then the average pH of the
oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold
increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the
year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been
experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this
rate of change is probably one hundred times greater
than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes
may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of
the biological effects.

Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our
lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean
chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring
at pre-industrial times (about 200 years ago). Our ability
to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods
such as the addition of chemicals is unproven. These
techniques will at best be effective only at a very local
scale, and could also cause damage to the marine
environment. Reducing CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere appears to be the only practical way to
minimise the risk of large-scale and long-term
changes to the oceans.

From the report linked above.

Mar 16, 2020 at 11:31 AM Phil Clarke

No ocean acidification