GISS August 2016 monthly anomaly for August is out.

0.98C

It is official. There is no denier myth that Golf Charlie does not believe is the revealed truth.

Phil Clarke, is your reference to Rahmstorf (of Real Climate) the paper he wrote with Grant Foster (AKA Tamino)? They both have a track record of supporting Mann and his Hockey Stick, and trying to pretend there was no LIA or MWP, or Ice Age Scare in the 70s.

Is that what is relevant to you? In other words all the recent events that make the Temperature Timeline seem wrong.

From Climate etc

"Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? Posted on June 4, 2015 | 912 Comments

by Judith Curry

A new blockbuster paper published today by NOAA: These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.  

Color me ‘unconvinced.’ Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang"

Phil Clarke, would that be the same Thomas C. Peterson who wrote with William M Connolley about there not being a 1970s Ice Age Scare? Bit embarrassing that Thomas C Peterson wrote the above with Thomas R. Karl who said there had. I am sure those taxpayer funds kept rolling in whatever they said.

Phil Clarke 11:54 You keep trying to deny what was written by William M. Connolley, Thomas R Karl and Thomas C Peterson?

Or did William M. Connolley keep it all so well hidden he didn't tell you either? You really ought to be more careful, in case you bring the UK Green Party into further disrepute.

On second thoughts, do carry on.......

Phil Clarke 11:54 You keep trying to deny what was written by William M. Connolley, Thomas R Karl and Thomas C Peterson?

Where exactly did I do that? Do share.

There is simply no comparison, The 'cooling scare' consisted a few articles in the media; scientific opinion was split, in the literature most papers were about warming but also conceded that prediction/projection was highly uncertain.

Now we have a scientific consensus with support in the high nineties, built on tens of thousands of studies and endorsed by 100% of professional scienttifc association on the planet.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:52 PM | Phil Clarke

Tropical Storm Julia Forms Near St Augustine, Florida

http://image4.flhurricane.com/images/2016/storm11//plot20160913-2222.gif

xtrp = xkcd.com "current path".

By the way, flhurricane.com was a busy place (and never a mention of global warming) up until about 2005 when alarmist extrapolations hit a brick wall.

http://flhurricane.com/

gc

That would be the Thomas C Petersen whose paper "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found" Phil linked to about the UHI when I banged on about it on the Zombie thread. I've started reading it, but just being back from holiday I have a lot of things to catch up on, and it may take me a few days to analyse it seriously. Suffice to say I'm not finding it terribly convincing so far.

Being an amateur in these matters, I had no idea who Thomas C Petersen is, so was just taking it at face value. Then I found him referencing Hansen (as well as referencing his own earlier work - of course), so thought I should look a little deeper. In his paper, he describes himself as being of "National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina". I didn't know what that was, so looked it up - guess what, it's part of NOAA. So it's not likely that someone who works there is going to disagree with the UHI temperature adjustments being made or suggest that they're inadequate, is it?

I'll still read the article if I can free up the time for it, as I hope it'll make me better-informed. But I do wish Phil would provide a health warning with his links. The amount of paperwork produced by the "consensus" to back each other up is truly astonishing.

GC Nope, I'm still not getting it. Connolley did a literature review of papers in the 60s and 70s and found 44 papers discussing global warming vs 7 on cooling. He didn't say there were no papers.

You've mentioned 3 authors and no papers.

BTW if by Karl you're meaning the abstract you reproduced in full above, that is not about global cooling.

The amount of paperwork produced by the "consensus" to back each other up is truly astonishing.

No, there are many strands of actual evidence, the consensus just documents what is actually occurring. Scepticism is great but doubting the worth of a piece of work simply because of who the author works for is a form of the ad hominem fallacy, you really need to show why the study is flawed.

You're right about that, Phil, of course. I'm serious about trying to find the time to analyse the paper. If and when I do, I'll post on here again with my comments.

Cheers

Mark

Phil,

When I said that you're right about that, I was referring to your concluding sentence, not the one I quote below:

"No, there are many strands of actual evidence, the consensus just documents what is actually occurring. " That sentence is a little more contentious. I do feel there is a great deal of circularity and self-reinforcing between a relatively tight group of authors within a "consensus" clique who constantly cite each other's work, and who often co-author papers. It's then relatively easy to produce the famous "97% consensus".

The problem, of course, is that if I find holes in Petersen's paper, it counts for nothing. I'm not in academia. I'm not a scientist. I have no ability to write something, have it peer-reviewed and published, and make any difference to anything. Nobody in the consensus is interested in challenging it, so we're going round in circles, and nothing is likely to change.

The problem, of course, is that if I find holes in Petersen's paper, it counts for nothing. I'm not in academia. I'm not a scientist. I have no ability to write something, have it peer-reviewed and published, and make any difference to anything.

Not the case. You could submit a comment to the journal, you could 'publish' on the internet and ask for scrutiny, if your criticisms have real merit and you find something the reviewers and all subsequent readers - the paper has been cited 285 times - have missed, they will be impossible to ignore.

Mark Hodgson, the link below was put up yesterday. The list of papers and their authors is taken from that list.

Phil Clarke likes to deny the existence of a problem caused by fellow Green William M Connolley.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

Phil Clarke supports William M Connolley in denying access to information which proves the 97% Consensus is a load of artificial sub-intelligence. Phil Clarke is quick to scream fraud without a hint of shame, embarrassment or hypocrisy.

Meanwhile the search for intelligent and honest life in Green Party Climate Science moves on. Nothing to see here. Which is all a shame, because as a Country Bumpkin, I do remain concerned about the Environment, both here and afar, and the Green Party has become a flock of sheep, controlled by wolves.

Gosselin makes the claim that Connelly has

written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes

This is of course, bollocks. In fact the whole thing is BS in various degrees from start to end.

F for real 'scepticism'.

Phil Clarke, is the figure too low or too high? Do you have more accurate information? It is only fair that William M Connolley should achieve proper recognition.

One way or another, the 1970s Ice Age Scare is confirmed, yet Consensus Climate Science denies covering up the evidence. No surprises.

They could have admitted to making a mistake about reaching conclusions based on inadequate data, instead they relaunch careers based on jumping to opposite conclusions based on adjusted data.

Which brings us back to the original graph., posted by EM. If it is only about CO2, how could the temperatures fall sufficiently to cause an Ice Age Scare? Which is presumably why the Ice Age Scare had to be vanished from the record.

The MWP and LIA had to be erased to make the Hockey Stick plausible, and so did the 70s Ice Age Scare, to maintain the credibility of expert climate scientists with a track record of being wrong.

There is no "F" in Climate Science, but plenty of fails and fraud.

If you use an edit counteryou can discover that I have, to date, edited 5,474 unique articles[...] But that raw number is nearly meaningless, because it includes articles such as Aesop, where Ireverted vandalism, Berkhamstead Castle, where I added a picture, I removed the S word from the CRA , and… I’m sure you get the picture

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

Phil Clarke says:

Gosselin makes the claim that Connelly has

written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles</.

Rhetorical device Harry, the context is

William Connolley may have successfully erased the Medieval Warm Period and 1970s cooling concerns from the pages of Wikipedia.  He may have successfully written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes.  But the internet has a long and expansive memory - (blah, blah)

People deploy this device to mean he did do these things but so what, look over here ...

Ironic really, as the whole piece is a real and massive exercise in real selective quotation. Still bollocks.

You still lied, Phil. (And I don't mean you may have lied).

Christopher Monckton may be a peer of the realm, he may be a member of the aristocracy, this does not mean he is incapable of getting the science egregiously wrong every time he opens his laptop.

See?

If I wanted to lie by selective quotation, I would hardly have given a link.

And the list is still bullshit.