We are of similar minds, RR. I had that one in mind but changed it at the last minute. Cheers.

Hoohaw, I can't resist. I missed this yesterday but Anthony has a wonderful quote @ WattsUp from Gavin Schmidt throwing Michael Mann's tree rings under the bus.

Sadly, he's still disinformative because he's trying to claim that no policy ever came from tree ring studies.

In fact, minus his tree rings, and all the other propaganda supporting 'unprecedented warming', policy might look very different now, and trillions of dollars(pounds etc.) might not have been wasted. Great Britain would certainly be a lot better off without the Climate Change Act, produced in response to, among other things, the IPCC touting the Crook't Stick.

There are damages and harm. There will be cures.

Gavin will eventually get around to confronting his guilty conscience rather than peeking over his shoulder at it. Phil will too, once he's allowed.
====================

Kim: +10 It cannot be 'denied'.

No, Gavin is making the entirely valid point that, when it comes to policymaking on AGW, there are many, many more compelling strands of evidence that compel action before you get to medieval tree rings.

The NAS panel said much the same Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

Watts is either disingenous or stupid, I lean towards the latter.

In the world of Kim
Citation mean failure and
No doubt, black is white.

Haiku from Phil Clarke....respect. (5-7-5)

Note the new line: The hockey stick was wrong but harmless. Yeah, that'll fly.

Attribution, she's a bitch;
Don't know how just scratch that itch.
Puff the Magic Climate
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
=====================

In Never-Mind Land
The Hockey Stick lies and cries;
Some zombies do die.
==============

The Hockey Stick is right and harmless, Straw Man construction notwithstanding.

This may be my favourite quote from the Bishopric With the replication of the hockey stick in tatters, reasonable people might have expected some sort of pause in the political momentum. 

Never fails to rise a smile.

Almost 30 years of 'We gotta act now' crowned with the gala Paris agreement to say anything and do nothing. Kiddo, there has been a pause in the political momentum, and it's likely to extend.
==================

On strange Planet Kim
One billion dollars a year
Equates to nothing

I note that at Paris, precisely zero of the countries in the world argued that AGW is a non-problem.

Must be lonely out there.

Phil Clarke, were any of the representatives at Paris asked to vote on not having free parties, on a regular basis, all over the world? Did all of them say that global warming was a problem?

Born in England, over 50 years ago, I have never been asked to vote on global warming

During the last UK election, the issue of what to do about global warming was never discussed by the main parties.

Green businesses keep going bust. No one cares.

It must be lonely in your restrictive little bubble.

Will the US Presidential race ever take global warming seriously?

Mann's Hockey Stick has conned the world out of billions, but you don't believe in honesty do you?

Phil Clarke, quoting Mann, to defend Mann, may be considered normal practice in climate science. However climate science doesn't understand normal practice, and normal practice generally excludes climate science.

I look forward to Mann calling himself as his only expert witness in court. It will be Unprecedented in any Legal Proceedings that I am aware of. Perhaps he will also call upon his own expertise to be the Judge and Jury aswell, which I understand is still accepted as normal practice in Climate Science. This would be considered unusual, but Mann will then find himself blameless, and just think of the fees he could be earning simultaneously. By ghostwriting the reviews of the film of his self-peer reviewed autobiographical book, about the scandal he made up, this could drag on for years.

There is something pretty cool about the non-binding character of the unanimous Paris Agreement. Apparently it is non-binding because the US delegation was afraid to submit it to the will of the people, in this case the US Senate.

I'm not sure, here, but it may be that the US was the only country which would have required consent to the agreement from a legislative body.

Highly amusing that the agreement is toothless because of the fear of submitting it to the will of the people.
=======================

Fact sometimes being as strange as fiction, there is currently a whole box of seemingly unloved hockey sticks inside the front door of my abode.

Perhaps the new neighbours are just too embarrassed to collect them over the last several days. Or are off on a tour of the Bernese Oberland to promote a new book. Or something. It's probably not science, whatever they are doing.

michael hart, depending on the wood used, unwanted and useless Hockey Sticks can be broken up (they tend to disintegrate quite readily once you look at them) and used as firewood. The additional heat is useful, and the CO2 liberated, is but a fraction of the CO2 generated in their artificial production.

I'm not so naive to think that the US Senate was the only party interested in the non-bindingness of Paree. I wrote after Copenhagen that the Chinese covered their chagrin at the failure of the shakedown of the developed West by pretending outrage at the neo-colonialist maneuverings of one Obama.

Watch Judy's, judithcurry.com, tomorrow for what promises to be a nice discussion of an essay about the failure of Paris.
================

I note that at Paris, precisely zero of the countries in the world argued that AGW is a non-problem.

They didn't have to, here's the non-binging agreement they signed up to:

1. aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change;

2. the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognising that this will take longer for developing countries; (So there go China, India and Brazil)

3. undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science;

4. come together every 5 years to set more ambitious targets as required by science;

5. report to each other and the public on how well they are doing to implement their targets;

6. track progress towards the long-term goal through a robust transparency and accountability system;

7. provide continued and enhanced international support for adaptation to developing countries.

What? A million air miles, for 40,000 attendees? And they agreed to - "try harder if they can" and "tell each other what they're doing - if they can".

Should have read "non-binding". Although if there'd have been an "e" in binging I doubt that anyone would have agreed, bingeing is the whole raison d'être of COPs.

Heh, geronimo, wait'll some of those unanimous nations figure out that the warming that man can do is net beneficial, the greening is remarkably beneficial, and the use of fossil fuels is massively net beneficial. Frankly, I think some among them, particularly the BRICs, have figured this out but are playing along with the charade to see how badly the developed West shoots themselves in the feet, after, of course, handing over their wallets.
================

Alright, the 'Unanimous Nations' all heading over the cliff, the least developed making sure the more developed still lead the herd.
================

Phil Clarke, quoting Mann, to defend Mann

Huh?

Well, it's not there yet; Judy's busy preparing a speech. The article is 'Twilight of the Climate Change Movement', in the American Interest magazine, author is Mario Loyola.

Precis:

1. The science is not settled
2. Extreme application of the Precautionary Principle has revealed the unbearable social cost of complying with proposed mitigation.
===========

Online now.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

Layola is entitled to his opinion, but he gets several facts wrong.