https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/04/06/watch-154-billion-spent-on-a-climate-hoax-video-features-activists-touting-climate-change-as-1-threat/

"There’s a reason why Americans don’t trust Washington and Hollywood. For years the left has warned about the “crisis” that would end the world. Now we are actually facing a global crisis that may lead to massive loss of life and a worldwide economic depression. Congress just passed a $2 trillion emergency bill to help address the pandemic and its effects, but Americans continue to suffer. Can you imagine if that $154 billion+ in spending on climate change projects had not been diverted to this panic and was put into virus research or pandemic preparation? How many ventilators can you buy with $154 billion? How many talented researchers were diverted to climate when they could have worked to prevent pandemics and research vaccines and cures?"

"A new reconstruction for SE Greenland (1796-2013) shows temperatures have risen and fallen without any hockey-stick-like trajectories for the last 200+ years. Temperatures were warmer than today in the 1920s and 1940s and even briefly during the 1800s.
If rising CO2 concentrations are a driver of Arctic warming, the 19th and 20th centuries should presumably have been much colder than today."
https://notrickszone.com/2020/04/06/a-new-1796-2013-greenland-reconstruction-shows-it-was-warmer-in-the-1920s-1940s-and-no-hockey-sticks/

Have you really not worked out how Tricky Pierre operates yet?

1. Find a temperature reconstruction study that has at least one non-hockey stick graph. It doesn't matter what the temperature is or how limited the study area.

2. Misrepresent this as 'No hockey stick in <much larger area>'.

This study is actually of sea surface temperatures in a single fiord Such a small area is likely to be more influenced by changes in local ocean currents than long term climatic changes, and the paper says this explicitly, there are large fluctuations of up to 12C and …

The ocean temperature on the SE‐Greenland shelf is mainly the result of the interaction between two major regional currents: The Irminger Current (IC), a bifurcation of the Gulf Stream carrying warm salty waters and the overlaying East Greenland Current (EGC), forms a relatively cold and freshwater layer above down to a depth of 150 to 200 m.

But 'No tricks' Pierre magically converts this to 'A New 1796-2013 Greenland Reconstruction Shows It Was Warmer In The 1920s-1940s – And No Hockey Sticks'

Intellectual poverty.

"Have you really not worked out how Tricky Pierre operates yet?"
Apr 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Phil Clarke

Have you ever made Mann's Hockey Stick work, as confirmed by Gergis and all the other fakes?

Apr 7, 2020 at 12:50 PM John Shade
Thank you, the greatest threat to Global Warming propaganda comes from Politicians realising they have been lied to, by Climate Scientists.

If a few of the 97% could admit/point to the worst atrocities committed, the clear up costs would be reduced.

Great to see these difficult times have not dimished your sense of humour ;-)

Apr 7, 2020 at 3:50 PM John Shade

It is sad, he had the honesty to prove how dishonest and unworthy of trust, 97% of Climate Scientists really are, as Phil Clarke demonstrates

What would the Singer fans point to as his greatest contribution?

Denial of the ozone hole, acid rain, the harmfulness of secondhand smoking or AGW?

"What would the Singer fans point to as his greatest contribution?
Apr 7, 2020 at 8:03 PM Phil Clarke"

For a start, work your way through this summary, bearing in mind you defend Mann's Hockey Stick ......

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/01/the_inventor_of_the_global_warming_hockey_stick_doubles_down.html

The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down
By S. Fred Singer
Professor Michael Mann, the inventor of the Hockeystick temperature graph, had a contentious editorial essay in the January 17th issue of the New York Times. [The Hockeystick graph purports to show that temperatures of the last thousand years declined steadily -- until the 20th century, when there was a sudden large rise.]

I am using the word "inventor" on purpose, since the Hockeystick is a manufactured item and does not correspond to well-established historic reality. It does not show the generally beneficial Medieval Warm Period (MWP) at around 1000 AD, or the calamitous Little Ice Age (LIA) between about 1400 and 1800. In the absence of any thermometers during most of this period, the Hockeystick is based on an analysis of so-called proxy data, mostly tree rings, from before 1000 AD to 1980, where the proxy temperature suddenly stops and a rapidly rising thermometer record is joined on.

Since its publication in 1998 and 1999, the hockeystick graph has had a turbulent history. It was adopted by the IPCC (UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its 3rd Assessment Report (2001) to support the claim of a major anthropogenic global warming (AGW) during the 20th century. Since then, the IPCC has distanced itself from the graph, which has been completely discredited. It not disagrees not only with much historic evidence that shows a MWP and LIA, but also with other analyses of proxy data. Most of the criticism has come from the work of two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have uncovered a misuse of data, a biased calibration procedure, and fundamental errors in the statistical methods.

McKitrick, an econometrician at Guelph University in Canada, has a pungent comment on Mann's op-ed, which was titled "If you see something, say something."

"OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself."

I have added my own comment as follows: "OK, I want to say something too: I see an ideologue, desperately trying to support a hypothesis that's been falsified by observations. While the majority of climate alarmists are trying to discover a physical reason that might just save the AGW hypothesis, Mann simply ignores the 'inconvenient truth' that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years -- while emissions of greenhouse gases have surged globally."

Of course, this is not the first time that "hide the decline" Mike has done this. Remember his "Nature trick" -- so much admired by his 'Climategate team' mates? [For those who don't remember the 2009 Climategate scandal: It consisted of a leak of some thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia, involving mainly Michael Mann and several of his English colleagues, documenting their completely unethical attempts to suppress any contrary opinions and publications from climate skeptics by misusing the peer-review process and by pressuring editors of scientific journals -- unfortunately, with some success.]

We don't quite know yet what the "Nature trick" refers to -- until we get Michael Mann to tell us why he has refused to reveal his never-published post-1980 proxy data. We may have to wait until we have him on the witness stand and under oath. But I strongly suspect that it has to do with absence of any temperature increase after 1980; its publication would have created a conflict with the reported (and problematic) thermometer data and with the assertion by the IPCC that humans are responsible for such a temperature rise.

In actuality, we now have adequate proxy data from other sources, most particularly from Fredrick Ljungqvist and David Anderson. Their separate publications agree that there has been little if any temperature rise since about 1940! However, there was a real temperature increase between 1920 and 1940, which can be seen also in the various proxy as well as thermometer data.

Anti-Science

Michael Mann saw something he didn't like in the Senate testimony (Jan 16, 2014) of fiercely independent climate scientist and blogger, Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry; so he decided to say something in his NYT op-ed. He forgot that often it is better to say nothing than to accuse Curry of peddling anti-science.

Curry has lost no time in taking Mann's challenge and turning the tables on him:

"Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being 'anti-science,' I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

During the Hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked me a question about why people refer to me as a 'contrarian.' I said something like the following: Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead, scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.

Curry's final message to Mann:

"If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as 'anti-science', I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge."

War on Coal

It is interesting that Mann now plays the role of the victim in purported persecution by powerful interests, darkly identified as the fossil-fuel industry. Actually, the reverse may be the case. Mann has become a strong proponent of emission controls on carbon dioxide, which fits in very nicely with the ongoing War on Coal conducted by the EPA and the White House -- and with the editorial policies of the New York Times -- coal being the most prolific source of CO2.

It is ironic that while coal use is increasing rapidly in China and India, it is also increasing in Europe where governments have been anti-CO2 fanatics in the past but have decided to stop nuclear power, which emits no CO2 whatsoever.

In the United States, requirements are being set up to capture CO2 from smoke stacks of power plants and store it underground. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a difficult and costly undertaking, and has never been demonstrated on a commercial scale. There have even been calls for sucking CO2 out of the global atmosphere, which sounds like an impossible task -- and in any case, would be very, very expensive.

And to what purpose? As pointed out many times, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture. As a natural fertilizer, it accelerates the growth of crops. Czech physicist Lubos Motl has calculated that if it were indeed possible to reduce CO2 levels to their pre-industrial value, global agriculture would suffer a strong decline and billions of people would starve to death.

But perhaps this level of population control is what the climate fanatics are really after. They have always maintained that the Earth suffers from over-population and that the number of people needs to be reduced to protect natural values -- a truly misanthropic scheme. In 1974, the Club of Rome group published a detailed study, predicting that a billion people would die of starvation, beginning in the 1980s and peaking in 2010. One of the proponents of this thesis is now the White House science adviser.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

Professor Michael Mann, the inventor of the Hockeystick temperature graph, had a contentious editorial essay in the January 17th issue of the New York Times. [The Hockeystick graph purports to show that temperatures of the last thousand years declined steadily -- until the 20th century, when there was a sudden large rise.]

I am using the word "inventor" on purpose, since the Hockeystick is a manufactured item and does not correspond to well-established historic reality. It does not show the generally beneficial Medieval Warm Period (MWP) at around 1000 AD, or the calamitous Little Ice Age (LIA) between about 1400 and 1800. In the absence of any thermometers during most of this period, the Hockeystick is based on an analysis of so-called proxy data, mostly tree rings, from before 1000 AD to 1980, where the proxy temperature suddenly stops and a rapidly rising thermometer record is joined on.

Since its publication in 1998 and 1999, the hockeystick graph has had a turbulent history. It was adopted by the IPCC (UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its 3rd Assessment Report (2001) to support the claim of a major anthropogenic global warming (AGW) during the 20th century. Since then, the IPCC has distanced itself from the graph, which has been completely discredited. It not disagrees not only with much historic evidence that shows a MWP and LIA, but also with other analyses of proxy data. Most of the criticism has come from the work of two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have uncovered a misuse of data, a biased calibration procedure, and fundamental errors in the statistical methods

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/01/the_inventor_of_the_global_warming_hockey_stick_doubles_down.html#ixzz6IxKgnZvI

American Thinker? Really?

Since then, the IPCC has distanced itself from the graph, which has been completely discredited.

Lie. The IPCC continued to cite MBH98/99, e.g. in the 2007 AR4:-

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C)

Mann et al published an updated reconstruction in 2008, after which the IPCC cited that, amongst others.

Mann simply ignores the 'inconvenient truth' that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years 

Lie Temperatures rose at a rate of 0.12C/decade, in line with the long term trend and model projections.

We don't quite know yet what the "Nature trick" refers to

Lie

Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or "trick of the trade". In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled.

-Dr Mann.

 But I strongly suspect that it has to do with absence of any temperature increase after 1980;

Big Lie

In actuality, we now have adequate proxy data from other sources, most particularly from Fredrick Ljungqvist and David Anderson.

Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology

- Ljungvist et al 2010.

Fred's highest achievement would seem to be riddled with demonstrable falsehoods.

Apr 7, 2020 at 9:30 PM Phil Clarke

Do you get all of your lies direct from Hockey Teamsters funded by Taxpayers?

Fred Singers's lies were funded by Tobacco and Oil interests. Indeed they made him a dollar milionaire.

John Shade holds Singer as an example of high moral standards.

Not sure if that tells us more about John, or Fred ;-)

Apr 7, 2020 at 11:41 PM Phil Clarke
If you and your Hockey Teamster colleagues are disputing Fred Singer's legitimate grounds for pointing out flaws in Mann's Hockey Stick, what are your agreed reasons for not defending it?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_hockey_stick_is_broken

American Thinker? Really?
Apr 7, 2020 at 9:30 PM Phil Clarke

You quote Real Climate and the IPCC? Really?
Do you have a reliable source, not involving Hockey Teamsters?

Predictable.

You're like one of those Japanese soldiers found on an isolated island still fighting a war lost years before.

Back on the ignore list.

Back on the ignore list.

Apr 8, 2020 at 9:35 AM Phil Clarke

Excellent news!

The IPPC (International Phil Clarke Co-operative) can't defend Mann's Hockey Stick.

Brief, factual S Fred Obit:

Don't like to speak ill of the recently deceased, but this isn't anything new so why not say it: History will remember Fred Singer as someone who did some some good work early in his career, but then turned to the dark side, denying the health effects of second-hand smoke and manmade global warming (and sometimes just global warming), paid by industry for both. He received a lot of money from them, while accomplishing epsilon, if that.

In 1962 Singer became the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center (now part of NOAA), directing "a program for using satellites to forecast the weather." He left in 1964.

After various positions Singer settled into the University of Virginia, where increasingly he stopped doing science and started getting involved on the wrong side of emerging issues. You have to wonder why -- did he have real scientific objections (poorly presented), or was the money good? In any case, Singer didn't contribute anything meaningful to climate science (one way or the other), and was left to publish in right-wing, heavily biased, fringe, un-peer-reviewed outlets like American Thinker. These had little effect too, except perhaps to climate deniers who needed reassurance that someone else thought as they did. From what I read of his there and elsewhere, and what I saw at a 2011 seminar at Portland State University, Singer's arguments were poor and he ignored or denied any science he did not like, and made bad predictions.

Now it just seems like scientific talent wasted.

David Appell

Fred Singer visited UEA whilst I was there and gave a lecture, if I recall correctly upon early satellite work. All I really recall was my feeling rather sorry for him, standing alone being verbally battered by my colleagues. He stood his ground and I admired him for that.

David Appell

Apr 8, 2020 at 11:41 AM Phil Clarke

Was David Appell the worst you could find?

"He stood his ground and I admired him for that.
Apr 8, 2020 at 12:26 PM AK"

Hockey Teamsters can't stand up for Mann. Definitely worth applauding the life and work of Fred Singer.