Nov 9, 2018 at 10:52 PM | Phil Clarke

How many names have you got that have "proved" Mann's Hockey Stick, including Mann and his Hockey Team?

Phil Clarke, are you able to explain what Gergis achieved, or were you lying, or were you just copying lies fed to you? If Mann has something to prove, he should stop delaying the legal action he instigated. Climate Science is holding out for a hero, and Trump is ready to deliver.

In the meantime, Dana has nailed it:

The Guardians former expert Dana Nuccitelli explains that Republicans in favour of Climate Science were losers in the US Mid Terms. This is very helpful for Politicians all over the World in the run up to COP 24 in Katowice as Poland gets the Polexit idea.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/09/bulletin-of-atomic-scientists-republicans-who-were-soft-on-climate-lost-to-democrats/

If The Guardian can't support Dana Nuccitelli any more, isn't it time Climate Scientists got honest about the rubbish so that the good bits can be saved?

Phil Clarke,
did Mann's Hockey stick include the MWP and LIA?

Was Mann advised NOT to use tree rings as thermometer records?

Do you maintain that Climate Science has not made any mistakes, as some people think some papers are fatally flawed, and should be withdrawn.

Are you happy that Phil Jones of CRU UEA "dealt with UHI" even though no one has yet seen his Chinese data?

Are you happy that acceptable standards of statistics were used by Cook et al to fabricate his 97% Consensus?

Phil Clarke, how did Climate Science decide that CO2 was the Planets Temperature Control Knob? Where are the supporting papers, supporting evidence, minutes of meetings, lists of those present?

Why should Trump agree that US Taxpayers are saddled with bills for "science" that can't explain itself? It seems that Trump defunding Climate Science shows more honesty.

When did Climate Science switch to "Projections" of future climate, from "predictions", and why? A bit of honesty about that would help.

There are a lot of questions that Trump would like some honest answers to, before he is convinced about funding more "proofs" of Manns Hockey Stick, especially if MANN cannot do it himself.

GC why do you clutter this tread, ostensibly concerned with Trump the Magnificent, with comments about Mann the Mental Maggot that ought to reside within other threads?

Phil Clarke, do you think that Climate Science has a problem with its inability to find its own mistakes, or give proper credit to those that do?

https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/

What about Climate Science's abuse of Peer Review, and gatekeeping, issues highlighted by Andrew Montford in "The Hockey Stick Illusion", written before the Climategate release of E-Mails?

Are you satisfied that Mann was exonerated by subsequent investigations, and his claims to a Nobel Prize?

Failed Malthusian and Paul Ehrlich Disciple is no longer the President's Science guru, and John Podestra is no longer peddling Presidential propaganda. It is time for Climate Scientists to show they are more honest than Trump. According to you, that should be easy, so why not start proving it? Identify the rubbish, don't recycle it, then the good bits can be saved

We should spare a compliment for perhaps the only person who comes out of the post-Midterm News Conference with any dignity - the intern. She tried to perform her duty with an enviable poise that contrasted with all around her. Her dipping down so not as to stand between Acosta and Trump, and her searching glance for instructions were just what was required. Brava

Supertroll, I agree. She acted politely and with respect. Acosta's body language was that of a classroom bully. He challenged her to physically remove the microphone.

Climate Scientists have ostracised anyone who disagrees with them, cut off their funding, driven them out of jobs etc. I expect Acosta does not question Climate Scientists.

Phil Clarke, Climate Science needs to prove it is worth funding.

Are you satisfied that calling Trump a liar is going to work?

Phil Clarke, is this the acceptable face of dishonesty in Climate Science and Ethics?
http://pacinst.org/about-us/staff-and-board/dr-peter-h-gleick/

Gavin Schmidt seems to think so
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-peter-gleick-incident/

and Climate Science keeps rewarding him.

How many names have you got that have "proved" Mann's Hockey Stick, including Mann and his Hockey Team?

Proof is rare in science, the conclusions of MBH98/99 have certainly not been credibly contradicted.

Click

The blue shaded area is the hockey stick uncertainty band. Every comparable reconstruction conducted since falls within those bands.

 If Mann has something to prove, he should stop delaying the legal action he instigated. 

Why do you believe it is Mann (or more likely, his legal team) who is responsible for the lack of progress?

If The Guardian can't support Dana Nuccitelli any more,

The Guardian has discontinued its climate blog (amongst others), however Nuccitelli still writes for them on an ad hoc basis.

did Mann's Hockey stick include the MWP and LIA?

See the graph above, there's certainly a minimum at around 1550AD, as for the MWP, Dr Mann (et al) discussed the MWP (or MCA) and the LIA in his 2009 study.

The PAGES 2K Consortium found

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

Was Mann advised NOT to use tree rings as thermometer records?

Not specifically. The NAS panel on paleo-reconstructions advised that strip-bark Bristlecones be avoided, however that was in 2005, six years after the hockey stick studies were published. More recent work (Salzer et al 2009, Salzer et al 2014) has found that Bristlecones are in fact perfectly good temperature proxies.

Do you maintain that Climate Science has not made any mistakes, as some people think some papers are fatally flawed, and should be withdrawn.

Straw man, of course not. Even Dr Mann conceded he would do things differently (and indeed he did, in 2008). However the AGW consensus (to use that shorthand) consists of multiple lines of evidence across many thousands of papers. Are they all perfect? Of course not, but you would have to falsify hundreds (and some pretty fundamental physics) to undermine the case for AGW.

Are you happy that Phil Jones of CRU UEA "dealt with UHI" even though no one has yet seen his Chinese data?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I think the Berkeley Earth study on UHI effectively settled that issue.

Are you happy that acceptable standards of statistics were used by Cook et al to fabricate his 97% Consensus?

There was no fabrication, and yes I am. There were critics of the methodology, notably Richard Tol, however even he noted

The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.

And he was right, Cook was only the latest in a series of studies to find a 90%+ consensus.

how did Climate Science decide that CO2 was the Planets Temperature Control Knob? Where are the supporting papers, supporting evidence, minutes of meetings, lists of those present?

Well, John Tyndall published on the heat absorbing effect of CO2 and water vapour in the 1860s, Arrhenius published the first estimate of what we now call Climate Sensitivity in 1893, the subsequent developments are well summarised in Spencer Weart's free e-book 'The Discovery of Global Warming' complete with copious references. And of course there are the IPCC Assessment Reports with their thousands of references.

When did Climate Science switch to "Projections" of future climate, from "predictions", and why? A bit of honesty about that would help.

Because the projections are conditional. Nobody knows how GHG concentrations will change and at what rate, and so the IPCC project multiple emissions scenarios and run the models against each one. No particular model run is preferred - if it were it could genuinely be called a prediction.

For example the first IPCC report used 4 scenarios A,B,C and D. The actual GHG concentration trajectory fell between B&C and the corresponding temperature projection showed considerable skill. (Viscount Monckton routinely ignores all scenarios other than A, in an attempt to discredit the IPCC btw).

What about Climate Science's abuse of Peer Review, and gatekeeping, issues highlighted by Andrew Montford in "The Hockey Stick Illusion", written before the Climategate release of E-Mails?

You should check your facts, the last chapter of HSI is all about the emails. I haven't read the book, (reviewed here) which I believe is based on the blog post 'Caspar and the Jesus Paper', which was extraordinarily inaccurate, and a write up of issues posted at Climate Audit. All of those issues have been addressed in the literature (Wahl and Amman etc) and indeed in Dr Mann's book - which I have read.

There are a lot of questions that Trump would like some honest answers to, before he is convinced about funding more "proofs" of Manns Hockey Stick, especially if MANN cannot do it himself.

Given that Trump's position contradicts the findings of his own scientists, whose report he has not even read, I doubt very much if he has even heard of Dr Mann and his excellent pioneering work. Besides, after the midterms, Trump's ability to do any more damage is limited.

I am heartened that Democrats will be in the Majority in the 116th Congress, and I cannot wait to get to work. If I am fortunate enough to be elected Chair of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, a Committee that I like to call the ‘Committee of the Future,’ I know that there is much that we can accomplish as Democrats and Republicans working together for the good of the nation.  There is much to be done in the next Congress, and I believe that at a minimum we need to pursue an agenda that will:

• Ensure that the United States remains the global leader in innovation, which will require attention to a wide range of activities: promoting effective STEM education solutions, engaging the underrepresented minorities and blue collar workers in the STEM fields, supporting a robust federally funded R&D enterprise and emerging areas of science and technology, defending the scientific enterprise from political and ideological attacks, and challenging misguided or harmful Administration actions;

• Address the challenge of climate change, starting with acknowledging it is real, seeking to understand what climate science is telling us, and working to understand the ways we can mitigate it; and finally,

• Restore the credibility of the Science Committee as a place where science is respected and recognized as a crucial input to good policymaking.

Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)

Are you satisfied that Mann was exonerated by subsequent investigations, and his claims to a Nobel Prize?

No valid evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. Dr Mann is rightly proud of his contributions to the IPCC reports, and the fact that the IPCC as a body was awarded the Nobel. He (or his lawyer) used the wrong form of words about that contribution, since corrected. So what?

Nov 10, 2018 at 5:54 PM | Phil Clarke

At least someone is prepared to sing "Stand by your Mann"

Are any of your sources reliable?

The Piltdown Mann Clown
Tottered out on Hockey Sticks;
'Censored', scissored, splat.
=====================

Phil Clarke, if Trump wants a handy list of reliable sources about Climate Science, blogs and all, he can refer to a paper co-authored by Mann

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/30/a-new-paper-shows-why-the-climate-policy-debate-is-broken/

Why people prefer to trust Trump rather than Climate Scientists

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/11/biggest-crisis-in-a-lifetime-worse-than-gfc-hits-australian-business-electricity-costs/

Trump is NOT banning Climate Science. Just encouraging people who value it, to fund it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/30/a-new-paper-shows-why-the-climate-policy-debate-is-broken/

Not even wrong.

GC, You are fond of asking if my sources (that would be every scientific academy and association on the planet, quite a lot of redundancy there) are reliable?

At the same time, you quote bloggers such as Anthony Watts.

Watts recently posted an article with this headline:

Study: Wind Farms Kill Off 75% Of Buzzards, Hawks And Kites That Live Nearby'

This piqued my curiosity, so I followed the trail to the source paper. Turns out to be a comparison of two regions in India, one with windfarms, another without. And yes there are 75% fewer raptors in the former. The paper is paywalled, but there was a sensible discussion at Phys.org where lead author Maria Thaker told the website that:

her research, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, showed that wind farms replicated the role of the top predator in the food chain by keeping the raptors at bay.

"They trigger changes to the balance of animals in an ecosystem as if they were top predators," she said. "They are the 'predators' of raptors—not in the sense of killing them, but by reducing the presence of raptors in those areas."

In other words, the birds were not killed, rather displaced by the introduction of the wind turbines.

Hardly a first offence. In my view, the inescapable conclusion is that Anthony Watts is not a reliable source.

Nov 10, 2018 at 11:31 PM | Phil Clarke

Climate Science has never considered evidence important. The combination of yours:
Nov 10, 2018 at 5:54 PM | Phil Clarke & Harvey et al are sufficient evidence to prove this.

It is a bit late to have someone independent reviewing Climate Science's internal Peer Review panel selections. They were never intended to find anything wrong. Mann proved that too.

Obviously my opinion doesn't matter, you need your best persona and charm offensive for Trump, assuming you think he can be bothered about Climate Science, after the abuse one of your multiple personalities has dished out.

The World has tried 20 years of Climate Science paid for by the public. The climate never cared for money, and the public don't like it being stolen for no purpose. Climate Science now has to restore trust and learn about honesty, without US Taxpayer Funds.

Climate Science should have got honest about Mann's Hockey Stick before destroying the credibility of the IPCC

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/30/a-new-paper-shows-why-the-climate-policy-debate-is-broken/
Not even wrong.
Nov 10, 2018 at 11:02 PM | Phil Clarke

Thank you for confirming why Climate Scientists are held in contempt, not just by Trump.
Judith Curry was right about it.

Trump knows where to cut Climate Science funding. Mann keeps providing evidence

Trump knows where to cut Climate Science funding. Mann keeps providing evidence

Hmmmm