golfCharlie. O-nigiri from street stalls and shops in San Francisco's Japantown in 1980s were triangular (sometimes cylindrical) and hand-made - sometimes on demand, and never from a machine. You chose the filling and whether or not it was going to be wrapped in seaweed. The same goes with suchi - always handmade, except in supermarkets.

Anyway climateball probably not played in Japan, much too polite.

Mass manufacturing of Onigiri from Wikipedia

"It was believed that onigiri could not be mass-produced as the hand-rolling technique was considered too difficult for a machine to replicate. In the 1980s, however, a machine that made triangular onigiri was devised. This was initially met with skepticism because, rather than having the filling traditionally rolled inside, the flavoring was simply put into a hole in the onigiri and the hole was hidden by nori. Since the onigiri made by this machine came with nori already applied to the rice ball, over time the nori became unpleasantly moist and sticky, clinging to the rice."

AK, I have no idea whether they were designed in the USA for traditional Californian Japanese cuisine, a bit like the traditional British Brum Balti Curry

golfCharlie. I doubt very much if most of the Japanese food available in Japantown was popular. Much of it was incredibly salty and would only appeal to Americans of Japanese descent or Japanese visitors.

In contrast, and like your Brum Balti, my kids loved to eat at the "Japanese" Ichiban steakhouse, which was as Japanese as downtown Moose Jaw. Essentially stirfry vegetables and a meat cooked in front of you on a sizzling hotplate by a Korean(?) dressed up and flourishing (even juggling) his cooking utensils and huge pepper and salt grinders. During a visit to Winnipeg my kids wanted to eat there every night, but anywhere else they would turn their noses up at so much vegetables. The power of presentation - just like climate science, you can sell any old crap.

AK 6:47, it takes a lot of Balls to keep selling Green Crap in the current phase of unchanging climate.

golfCharlie. Who argues the climate is unchanging? Maybe (!!!!) the rise in global temperature (whatever that is) has paused, but regional climates across the world still change, some becoming drier, some wetter, some cooler, some warmer, some affected by human activities, most not. If CO2 increases have an effect, it is swamped by others much more powerful to which humans can only adapt, never control.

AK, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, but...........

does this changing climate thingy alter the supply and demand for Rice Balls, whether Hand Made, Machine Made, or Computer Generated, and their ability to stick in the throat and choke people?

golfCharlie. "Computer generated rice balls". Are they now using 3D printers? Golly, you could order clockwise or anticlockwise mobius strip o-nigiri. Or even klein bottle o-nigrini, but don't expect those to hold saki.

Perhaps climate science papers could be printed on mobius strips made of rice paper. Rubbish with no beginning or end and forever one sided! Mobius science.

AK I think it is to do with the graphics and animated handwaving.

As Steve McIntyre pointed out, Gergis 2012 was included in IPCC AR5, even though it was known to be incorrect. So Gergis 2016 had to 'stick', even though it hasn't.

As Gergis 2016 was to be the latest paper to confirm Mann's Hockey Stick, it may now be concluded that Mann's Hockey Stick is confirmed to be Climate Balls. It is clear why proponents of Climateball wanted to focus on McIntyre's motives for questioning Gergis.

Climateball is best played single handed by dedicated professionals,

As Steve McIntyre pointed out, Gergis 2012 was included in IPCC AR5, even though it was known to be incorrect.

Bollocks.

Phil Clarke. Yes Indeed. Seems to be the conclusion of all about Gergis.

"Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke"

I think we are entering the Snarknado season.

Gergis 2012 was included in IPCC AR5

Still bollocks.

golfCharlie, more likely the season of Frankenstein's creation - bits cobbled together from all over, poorly stitched together, and needing a jolt from the IPPC to give it life.

Phil Clarke. Would you care to expand your somewhat scatological reposts to a claim that elements of Gergis 2012 were not incorporated into IPCC AR5?

My recollection is that the paper was cited in the report but it wasn't used.

I was wrong, the First Order Draft cited Gergis et al and it was used by the IPCC, in the Second Order Draft it was used by the IPCC but cited as PAGES 2K Consortium, of which Gergis is a member.

So the Balls (= bollocks) have it, by a technicality. Is PAGES 2K Consortium a peer-reviewed paper, and how does it differ from Gergis 2012 (which clearly is not)?

GC, who is fond of accusing climate scientists of making false claims, asserts that the withdrawn Gergis et al 2012 paper was included in IPCC AR5.

This is an untrue statement.

Clear?

Ok, ok. I should have done my homework, but where did the Australasian data come from in PAGES 2K? I also notice a significant discrepancy in the North American data.

Phil Clarke. Technically you win on points, but it would appear that the conclusions in Gergis 2012, with all their faults, were simply reproduced in PAGES 2K, and that was used in AR5. Your "bollocks" are awfully small, was it worth winning?

I note that the PAGES 2013 reference list contains no obvious reference to Australasian data, and that although there are several later online corrections, none refer to the Australasian reconstruction. Interesting.

Phil Clarke, from the moment you started this thread with false claims, about a paper with false claims, with false claims made by expert climate science peer reviewers, everything has become so much more clear. Thank you.

Why are you getting upset now? How did you think it would all wash out?

Phil Clarke, any chance of a correction from you?

it would appear that the conclusions in Gergis 2012, with all their faults, were simply reproduced in PAGES 2K, and that was used in AR5. I note that the PAGES 2013 reference list contains no obvious reference to Australasian data, and that although there are several later online corrections, none refer to the Australasian reconstruction. Interesting.

More bollocks. The Aussie data is referenced in the SI - Fig S13.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/extref/ngeo1797-s1.pdf

And is sourced from Neukom, R. & Gergis, J. Southern Hemisphere high-resolution palaeoclimate records of the last 2000 years. The Holocene 22, 501-524 (2012). which is not Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium aka Gergis 2012 which had the detrending issues that got everyone so excited.

Anyone around here interested in being correct?

Phil Clarke, Bollocks yourself, your rudeness. I wrote "reference list contained no obvious reference to AUSTRALASIAN data" you come up with Neukom and Gergis 2011, which concerns southern continent reconstructions, not specifically Australasia.

Most interesting was when I was looking up (google) the PAGES 2k reference I encountered the manucript of the paper (which in a matter of 40 minutes has since disappeared). The published paper gives as reference 39 the Neukom and Gergis 2012 paper, however in the manuscript originally submitted reference 39 was given as Gergis et al (in revision). In the same time interval a non paywalled version of the paper has taken its place. Nefarious goings on? I wonder if Nature Geoscence has retained a copy of the original manuscript.

I am indeed very interested in the truth, and the truth gets stranger every day.

AK, Climate Science's recorded history is changeable, and it's projections are retractable, but mistakes are never admissible.

If only climate science could be as reliable as British weather.