Previously, we discussed the upside-down Tiljander proxies in Mann et al 2008. Ross and I pointed this out in our PNAS comment, with Mann denying in his answer that they were upside down. This reply is untrue (as Jean S and UC also confirmed.)

Here is "Dr Mann's reply. Judge for yourself the degree of honesty on display.

Corrected Mangled URL ...

Here is Dr Mann's reply. Judge for yourself the degree of honesty on display at Climate Audit.

Here's a hint

You wrote 'The bust between CO2 GCMs and observed CO2' which doesn't make much sense as written. I interpreted as there being a discrepancy between modelled and observed levels of CO2 concentrations. Your search does not really clarify much, but if I assume you meant a discrepancy between model output vs observations with observed CO2 (and other forcings) as an input, well, the models do a tolerably good job.

" .. the models do a tolerably good job."
Nov 13, 2018 at 2:27 PM | Phil Clarke
No they don't, they just confirm more failures by Climate Science's IPCC and prove that Trump is right.

He is not banning Climate Science, just giving it the opportunity to seek alternative employment and funding, just as Climate Scientists have done to so many, for so long.

https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
"Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared."

Climate Science really should have listened to Steve McIntyre. I expect Trump has advisers that did all along.

Classic McIntyre conspiracy-based reasoning. No such thing as an honest mistake on Planet Audit. He compares an early, flawed draft (clearly marked Do Not Quote or Cite btw) with the corrected final version and instantly declares bad faith.

The facts:

Late last year, an early draft of the IPCC report was leaked, including the first draft version of the figure shown above. The first version of the graph had some flaws, including a significant one immediately noted by statistician and climate blogger Tamino.

"The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out ... the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.

Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison."

In the draft version of the IPCC figure, it was simply a visual illusion that the surface temperature data appeared to be warming less slowly than the model projections, even though the measured temperature trend fell within the range of model simulations. Obviously this mistake was subsequently corrected.

This illustrates why it's a bad idea to publicize material in draft form, which by definition is a work in progress. That didn't stop Fox News, Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post, Roger Pielke Jr., the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts from declaring premature and unwarranted victory on behalf of climate contrarians based on the faulty draft figure.

Source

You speaketh in riddles.

Ho Ho. Nothing McIntyre says contradicts what I wrote. As ever he misses out the impact of his criticisms, which is negligible.
Nov 13, 2018 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I imagine Steve McIntyre has better things to do with his time than tracking you on the internet to refute your opinions.

Meanwhile, would you like to tell me how many BT engineers you have met who are well versed in quantum mechanics and regard it as part of their every day job requirements?

..and remember, Phil, men were sent to the moon by other men using slide rules. I watched it on TV as a child. Look at those Saturn V's go!
Do not underestimate the power of Newtonian Mechanics. Or over estimate the power of the contribution of quantum mechanics.
(OK, it does help efficiently distribute video-porn across the globe, and guide assassination drones, the former probably contributing more to world peace. But the contribution to human living still needs to be considered in the context of what would have happened anyway: Something climate scientists seem incapable of recognising. Which hopefully brings us closer to back on topic.)

Nov 13, 2018 at 10:24 PM | michael hart

I don't think Trump is ready to authorise drone strikes on Climate Scientists and their models yet, but they have caused the deaths of so many innocent people, that they could be included on the list of known terrorist groups.

Simply defunding the scaremongerers should alleviate the suffering now, and if Climate Scientists choose to attack each other over support for Mann's Hockey Stick, why should anyone else care?

GC, Thank you for bringing us back to the topic of the discussion thread, i.e. Trump.

There's been a lot of comment of unthreaded about him recently. In my last comment I forgot to say that it used to be considered a wonderful thing when the political leaders of Russia and the USA could both appear at the same event. That they can now appear and great each other with a wink, a smile, and a slap on the back, really ought to be considered a fucking marvelous step towards world peace and a reduction in the likelyhood of imminent death by nuclear war.

Putin may not be a nice man, and maybe I wouldn't want to leave President Clinton Trump alone with my nieces when they [the presidents] were still young enough to do some harm, but I will still swap today for the 1970's.

Russia is a beaten foe and are no credible threat. But they remain a significant power and have a right to feel threatened by neighboring expansionist powers like the EU wanting to swallow up the Ukraine or generally nibble at their borders. Yet the EU couldn't manage to rule the whole land mass of Far-Eastern Europe and Northern Asia as far as the Pacific without treading on a few toes, much less organize a stiffy in a whore house. They really should be courting Russia to do our dirty work for us when it comes to maintaining a semi-peace in the bordering regions. I can't help feeling there is much worse to come, and I would rather like to have the Russians on our side.

But apparently, much of the Western media would rather take the time to undermine a US President who could actually strengthen relations with Russia while also keeping their unsavory strong-men at arms length. This media stance disturbs me a lot more than most things in the last decade or two.

Nov 14, 2018 at 12:22 AM | michael hart

Agreed!

The Cold War finished because the USSR ran out of money. The "Peace Dividend" has been wasted by NATO Countries on Climate Science, and now the EU is developing an addiction to Russian fossil fuels, as EU Unreliable Power Schemes are underperforming their promoters claims as widely anticipated.

Russia's wealth was in fossil fuels, now this wealth is owned by shady oligarchs with the clout to arrange all sorts of dodgy deals, enforced by experts in enforcing dodgy deals. They can produce and sell dodgy dossiers on anyone, and create more corrupted records than William M Connolley let loose on Wikipedia.

The EU is in a poor position for bartering with anyone Russian, or anyone called Trump. Obviously the Russians know this, and the EU thinking they can do better than NATO must be increasing Russian confidence in defending Russia from further EU threats.

Great Britain was the biggest loser of WW2, gaining nothing. The USSR suffered the worst damage, but gained Eastern Europe. The EU and US have been the biggest losers of Climate Science and China the biggest winner.

At least Trump can see that US Citizens are fed up with giving money away based on nonscience, that is only harming the USA

Yes, tomo. I think the legacy media are lashing out at many things that are a result of their apparent gathering loss of power.

I saw the last Presidential election, and the result, not as a traditional contest between Republicans and Democrats, but as one where the MSM were in almost complete unison at expressing their rage that it wasn't them who really got to decide the result of the election. Their hubris exceeds anything I have ever seen from mainstream politicians.

The fighting for control of the allowable politics expressed on the internet is becoming more intense and bitter. I honestly don't know how it will turn out. What I do know, is that we have many aging legislators in the UK, EU, and US who simply don't understand the technology or the potential socio-politcal consequences of what they are either voting on, or ignoring completely. I think a newer generation of politicians is needed before the whole thing may settle down in reasonable way.

Nov 15, 2018 at 11:40 PM | tomo

If St Hillary still thinks she has a chance in 2020, Trump will be very pleased.

Andew Bolt on Macron
Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun calls out Marcon over his attack on Trump - he observed that to be patriotic is, in other words, to love one's nation.
Also that Macron is a hypocrite noticing that he, Macron heaped praise on Petain who capitulated to Hitler and willingly collaborated in the holocaust.
Andew Bolt - Macron insult of Trump makes no sensee here

tomo, that should be Progressive EU supporting bankers sponsoring Macron. I think they thought their man would be useful to stabilise France and the EU, working in unity with Merkel for at least 3 years.

The anti Trump message is in accordance with the thinking of Progessive Bankers. Their thinking has not been reaping the biggest rewards recently, but on balance, not yet an operating loss.

The US Mid Terms must have cost a few bankers their bonuses, last ditch attempts to sabotage BREXIT are going to require more money, meanwhile EU EXIT sentiments are getting more vocal across Europe.

Difficult questions will not be allowed at COP 24, but Climate Science is running out off money too.