Honesty is now decided by a show of hands.

"97%"

Phil C

I suspect that I dislike Donald Trump as much as you, but are you really saying that Hilary Clinton was a good option for President? Even many Democrats didn't think so - had they done so, she would have won.

but are you really saying that Hilary Clinton was a good option for President?

Some have inferred that, but I have never said so. No, I do not think that, but it is not my specialist subject.

Martin A, McIntyre's comment to Dilbert concerning delusions. It is interesting that Mann's Hockey Stick spurred him into action. If Climate Science had abandoned it's addiction to Mann, his Hockey Stick and numerous failed attempts to replicate it, Climate Science might have evolved into something useful. Now, much of it is destined to be discredited, because climate scientists preferred dishonesty, but they still deny this.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/06/quote-of-the-week-mcintyres-comment-to-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-climate-experts/

 When I challenge warmists to enumerate the most serious of the damages experienced so far, I do not get answers.

LOL. When I challenge McIntyre fans to quantify the actual significance of his criticisms on the science, I do not get answers.

Wahl and Ammann (2006) also show that the impact [of the McIntyre and McKitirck critique] on the amplitude of the final reconstruction [by MBH98] was small (~0.05C)

IPCC AR4.

That this inconvenient fact has driven hundreds of blog posts, dozens of fevered accusations, a basket load of FOI requests, and stoked multiple fires of manufactured outrage is far more a testimony to personal obsession, rather than to its intrinsic importance. The science of paleo-reconstructions has moved well beyond this issue, as has the interest of the general public in such minutiae. We can however expect the usual suspects to continue banging this drum, long after everyone else has gone home.

From <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/wahl-to-wahl-coverage/>

Phil C:

"but are you really saying that Hilary Clinton was a good option for President?

Some have inferred that, but I have never said so. No, I do not think that, but it is not my specialist subject."

Thanks for clarifying - you and I are in broad agreement on the US election then. We'll no doubt disagree, though, if Trump starts to drain the climate swamp:-)

Bill Illis is good on adjustments deep in that comment thread about StevieMac's deep comment at Scott's thread.
======

Heh, Phil deshabille, I'm tellin' ya, he's not even wearing his new suit of sackcloth and ashes.
=======

Martin A & Mark Hodgson, as a non climate scientist, I get the distinct impression that climate science was looking for a headline grabber for the IPCC, that would flatten out climate history and erase the LIA and MWP. Mann produced it.

I also think that because the science was so "settled", the assumption was that even if the Hockey Stick was not strictly based on science, the evidence would become self evident. It hasn't.

With so much kudos at stake, finding evidence, then became finding circumstantial coincidences that could be attributed to global warming, and we have ended up with increased desperation.

Whatever validity to the CO2 = Global Warming argument, has been so compromised by dubious practices that it may be easier and cheaper to scrap the lot.

The famous "Miscarriage of Justice" cases have tended to involve a presumption of guilt by investigators and prosecutors, with evidence selected/slanted/fabricated/discarded/planted accordingly.

Martin A, can't really disagree with that!

Climate Scientists are still digging themselves-in even deeper. It will be interesting to see if any of the Hockey Teamsters break Union rules and propose a compromise, discarding some of the more "controversial" sacred relics, of their failed theories.

They do seem particularly sensitive about ECS, though the climate doesn't seem sensitive at all.

PC still doesn't get it, and his admission that he is ignorant regarding American politics explains why he is not likely to. His "specializing" in repeating the talking points of only one side explains quite a bit. As to his assertion that McIntyre is not effective, lol.

LOL. When I challenge McIntyre fans to quantify the actual significance of his criticisms on the science, I do not get answers.

Note the contribution of the butterfly's wing to the hurricane.

Perhaps of even more interest to future historians of science will be the effort put into the willful malpractice of climate science in order to divert the current of alarmist consensus around the rock of hard analysis which StevieMac placed in its way. One might even make the argument that the tactics and strategies of the alarmists were so perverted by his presence as to delay the progress of climate science, but since the experience can't be repeated, one can not guess how long it would have taken climate science to self-correct. It has been his method, though, by which whatever correct progress is being made is being made.

So there's that.
=======

Steve's interest has long been about policy; though relatively mute about action, his point has long been that the science is not settled enough for policy considerations. Now that the unsettled nature of the science has produced the quandary about policy, rather, has brought to the public consciousness of the quandary, his corpus is rich with insights. There is a lode for the curious. Proxies and statistics are his specialties, but his overview of the campaign of climate alarmism is much broader and extremely thoughtful.

There are some who will never appreciate him; he's unforgivably damaged their illusions.
================

I was rather hoping for solid and valid examples of a criticism raised by M or indeed M&M that has both stood up to scrutiny and caused a consequential change to any of the conclusions of the more mainstream scientists.

Not just more evidence-free waffle.

Heh, merely exposed the paucity of evidence for alarum as was the alarum mainstream. Sadly, you reveal the tragedy of the perversion of science the demands of technocracy have made of it. The mainstream still prefers the alarmist narrative.

A microcosm exemplar for my 12:32, your very own fave, Gergis. Had there been no Steve McIntyre, or Jean, then her initial article would have entered the science incorrect, but one caused more by poor research and bias than by deliberate misconduct, though interestingly provoked by the need to show a Southern Hemispheric hockey stick overwhelming any MWP. Now, instead, we have basically a signed confession of politicized science, still wrong, but now cruelly laden with deliberate mischief and for topping, arrogance, such as you too gild yourself with.

To think that a little old retired ore analyst could have such power!
=================
========================

Thank you. The retraction of Gergis is a valid example of a blog critique having an impact, however the original was not 'incorrect', it had a mismatch in the description of the methods and what was actually done.

I think he has also had a positive influence in improving data archiving practices.

My point is that the sound and fury is out of all proportion to the actual impact; Gergis has been redone and accepted for publication, and in any case the most up to date current paleo-reconstruction - PAGES 2K relies on Gergis and Neukom 2012 . On his greatest hit - the MBH studies, Wahl and Ammann showed that the PCA issue had negligible impact, the NAS panel nixed the r-squared issue, which leaves proxy selection, and to quote Tamino in his review of Montford's book

'You get a hockey stick with standard PCA, in fact you get a hockey stick using no PCA at all. Remove the NOAMER PC1 and Stahle series, you’re left with a hockey stick. Remove the Gaspe series, it’s still a hockey stick"

Speaking of that review, this exchange is enlightening.

Heh, shaft, not blade. Gawd you alarmists expose yourself so with your worship of the icon, Crook't Stick.
==========

You repeat yourself. All my points (and Gavin's) refer to the entire reconstruction.

But I am completely uninterested in rehashing the HS. We've moved on.

Time to dump the Hockey Stick, but I think Trump has lined up all the Hockey Teamsters.

If the Hockey Teamsters had dumped Mann's Hockey Stick years ago, Climate Science might have evolved into something useful.

Now, about that 97% Consensus nonscience ......

Wahl and Ammann showed that [blah blah blah]
Dec 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

....
When I challenge McIntyre fans to quantify the actual significance of his criticisms on the science, I do not get answers.....

Dec 8, 2016 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
But I am completely uninterested in rehashing the HS. We've moved on.

Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

No, Phil Clarke, you haven't moved on. You are still here trying to defend the hockey stick and associated papers, long after the original perpetrators have tried to move on. They hope that the tides of time will wash away the stains of their own personal involvement in the greatest scientific deception since Piltdown Man, but you are not helping them. That's OK here, Phil, but you wouldn't be allowed such extensive truthfulness at the "Real Climate" blog.

And I presume that this Wahl and Ammann was the same Wahl and Ammann that was rejected by reviewers (McIntyre being one of them), but they still cited it anyway for the IPCC A4? And why wouldn't a corrupt scientist do that if they knew that the editor who had their back was Stephen-"we have to offer up scary scenarios"-Schneider, the same Stephen Schneider who gave public succour to those activist-scientists who felt any difficulty when confronted with the apparently difficult choice of either a) telling the truth or b) being 'effective communicators' and "getting loads of media coverage". I guess that particular question about a "balance between being effective and being honest" is one that he took to the grave with him: Steve McIntyre appears not to have received satisfactory answers to his questions on this matter regarding due process in Stephen Schneider's version of climate science peer-review.

Speaking only for myself, Phil Clarke, if you ever think your posts are being ignored at BH, it might well be because you give a good impression of being a technical troll, and I skip over many of them. Defending what appears to me as the completely-indefensible hockey stick, isn't going to get you taken any more seriously than sky dragons: I simply start switching off when I see the usual lame defences of the HS, which usually seem to involve appealing to the 'authority' of sycophants who are even less trustworthy and scientifically competent than Mann himself, if that is possible.

And, please, I don't need Steve McIntyre to point out BS when I see it. That applies to more readers at Bishop Hill than you seem to recognise. But you come here regularly making criticisms of him that you could have made, in more detail, at his blog without fear of censorship, if you wanted to. Censorship that I would certainly experience at the blogs you like to frequent/cite. If anything, I think he is way too polite. I still look forward to you or Entropic Man making some detailed pertinent criticisms at Climate Audit.

"Moving on" in the world of climate science often seems to involve no more than a cat "moving on" when it scratches a little sand over its business in the litter box. But at least a well trained cat seems to hit the sand in the box with a modicum of accuracy.