Oh dear. JayJay.

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear.

From your comment, I thought there existed a reconstruction, published in a peer-reviewed journal, preferably global, but Northern Hemisphere is acceptable, that falls outside the uncertainty intervals of the Mann/Bradley/Hughes studies from 1998/99, aka the Hockey Stick. That is, covering the last 1,000 years.

My position is that no such study exists. You dispute this, however I am afraid that the citation of a few Vostok (Southern hemisphere, low resolution) ice core proxy studies and one from the Sargasso sea will not do.

But I am willing to wager that this nonsense is all you have.

Mar 8, 2018 at 9:48 PM | Entropic man

Climate Science has failed to provide any evidence of a link between CO2 levels and temperature. Climate Science wants to forget the MWP and LIA, and now would like to forget Mann and his bent stick.

If there is a link between CO2 and temperature, it must have been exaggerated, otherwise evidence would have been found, as CO2 has continued to rise

It does not matter what model I have in my mind, the models, with computer assistance, that are embedded within the minds of Climate Scientists are wrong. Throughout this thread, you have never admitted anything is wrong, which simply proves that climate science is incapable of finding its own mistakes and correcting them. It does not deserve taxpayer funding any more than astrology does. Meteorology does deserve continued funding, and has benefitted from some of Climate Science.

You raise comparisons with sailing.
Sailing with the wind behind you is obvious in theory, and relatively straightforward with a simple square sail. The Vikings probably managed to sail to about 60 degrees off the wind What is known in Europe as a lateen sail (as in latin) was probably developed in the Indian Ocean, rather than the Mediterranean, but could have developed independently in the Pacific. It allowed boats to travel about 50 degrees off the wind. Europeans modified it into staysails and gaff rig, and this allowed it to be handled on larger vessels capable of crossing oceans, AND coming back again.

But did anybody understand the aerodynamics of how it was possible to sail towards the wind? Probably not, but it worked. If they had understood the aerodynamics, early attempts at gliders and flying would probably have had a wing like a hanglider, it is a sail.

Climate Science cannot evolve or develop whilst still stuck with the broken Stick. It is a dead parrot. It never worked. The models are flawed or broken. Why do you hang onto it? With the full force of US money, and President Obama's orders, the dead ducky/parroty/sticky thingy did not fly. What hope now?

Work out a new theory in your own time, but please make sure it explains the MWP and LIA.

Mar 9, 2018 at 12:18 AM | Phil Clarke

Anything valued by you and Peer Reviewed by Climate Science for the self preservation of Climate Science, probably isn't Science. 97% of it is made up.

You seem to be endorsing Mann's Domino Toppling Conspiracy Theory. Do you have any more to add to the EPA's list?

https://climateaudit.org/?s=mann+steyn

Mar 9, 2018 at 1:05 AM | clipe
Mann's blatant lies are an inspiration to Climate Science! Good to have them highlighted for Phil Clarke's benefit.

Phil Clarke thinks that the words and actions of Mann don't count, once they may be used in evidence against Mann, in legal action that Mann instigated. This is a reflection of the standards of evidence that Climate Science has always depended on, as Phil Clarke is so keen to prove, in the absence of any other evidence to support Mann.

Oh dear. JayJay.

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear.

From your comment, I thought there existed a reconstruction, published in a peer-reviewed journal, preferably global, but Northern Hemisphere is acceptable, that falls outside the uncertainty intervals of the Mann/Bradley/Hughes studies from 1998/99, aka the Hockey Stick. That is, covering the last 1,000 years.

My position is that no such study exists. You dispute this, however I am afraid that the citation of a few Vostok (Southern hemisphere, low resolution) ice core proxy studies and one from the Sargasso sea will not do.

But I am willing to wager that this nonsense is all you have.

All I have? LOL.
The few examples that I quoted, and indeed merely as an example, are all from peer reviewed papers. There are many more.

As to the Sargasso Sea: AFAIK one of the graphs featured in the IPCC reports prior to Mann's Hockey Stick clearly showed both MWP and LIA and was either taken from one of those Sargasso Sea studies or was a major input for it (I had read the study earlier and noticed that the IPCC graph looked identical).
The reference I gave for Sargasso is also on the IPCC list (obviously).

But OK let's do some more, just a few mind. There are many of them, and because all of them show a clear MWP (and LIA) and as such should all fall way outside the Hockey Stick because that shows a flat-line.

Northern Hemisphere

Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15703742
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf
Abstract
A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of natural climate variability, on decade to century timescales, and the role of anthropogenic forcing. These reconstructions have mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data. Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model. According to our reconstruction, high temperatures--similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990--occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.

D'Arrigo, R., Wilson, R. and Jacoby, G. 2006. On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006352.
Description
D'Arrigo et al. (2006) assembled mostly tree-ring width (but some density) data from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree species found at 66 high-elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites, after which they analyzed the data via the Regional Curve Standardization detrending technique to reconstruct a history of annual temperature for the Northern Hemisphere between 20 and 90°N for the period AD 713-1995. In comparing the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, 950-1100 A.D.) with those of the Current Warm Period (CWP), based on the six longest chronologies they analyzed, they concluded that "the recent period does not look particularly warmer compared to the MWP." However, the mean of the six series did depict a warmer CWP; but they describe this relationship as "a bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction where the MWP, because it is expressed at different times in the six long records, is 'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal." Nevertheless, the data are what they are; and for the period covered only by the proxy data (so that "apples and oranges" are not compared), they found that peak twentieth century warmth (which occurred between 1937 and 1946) exceeded peak MWP warmth by 0.29°C.

Most studies are more local, for some regions there are many, for others just a few.
There is a site that indexes many of them, it is quite a long list by now, organized by region.
And although all of these show MWP (and LIA), some (majority) show MWP warmer than CWP , some show MWP colder than CWP.
The average for MWP-CWP is about 0.7 deg C, see MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials
For level 2 studies & qualitative differences see MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials: About 100 studies show MWP>CWP, 20 MWP=CWP and less than 10 CWP>MWP

The exact delta also depends on calibration of the paleorecord to modern day temperatures, of course.
Below an example of a study where this is discussed in context, and this shows that the question whether MWP>CWP or vice versa can depend on calibration.
But again note that ALL these studies show the existence of a MWP and LIA, which had totally disappeared from the Mann 1998 paper.

Saenger, C., Came, R.E., Oppo, D.W., Keigwin, L.D. and Cohen, A.L. 2011. Regional climate variability in the western subtropical North Atlantic during the past two millennia. Paleoceanography 26: 10.1029/2010PA002038.

"...
Using the calibration of Anand et al., the peak warmth of the MWP is seen to have been about 0.1°C less than that of the CWP based on both the 59GGC and MC22 core data; while using the calibration of Arbuszewski et al. (2010), the peak warmth of the MWP is seen to have been about 0.7°C greater than that of the CWP based on the data from the 59GGC core, which was the only one for which the authors presented Arbuszewski et al. calibration results. Thus, for both sites (two independent results for two locations), Saenger et al.'s study suggests that the peak warmth of the MWP was 0.1°C less than that of the CWP, while it also suggests that the peak warmth of the MWP was 0.7°C greater than that of the CWP at the 59GGC site, with the MWP of both sites falling in the range of about AD 700-1300." http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_carolinaslope.php

Do all of these studies fall inside the uncertainty intervals of the Mann/Bradley/Hughes?
All show MWP and LIA where Mann et.al. shows a flat-line; must be quite a big uncertainty interval for all these other studies to still fall in that range. Was that uncertainty correctly reported in that study (I do not remember seeing it on the main chart)? What was the SD that Mann reported?

I doubt that all studies fall inside the uncertainty range of Mann etal 1998 it because Mann showed a flat-line and then his hockey stick, ergo showed CWP >> MWP, yet all these studies show MWP >= CWP and on average MWP >> CWP (i.e. more by a significant amount).

All show MWP and LIA where Mann et.al. shows a flat-line; must be quite a big uncertainty interval for all these other studies to still fall in that range. Was that uncertainty correctly reported in that study (I do not remember seeing it on the main chart)?

Of course they reported uncertainties, a fact that is often forgotten or ignored. Indeed the full title of MBH99 is 'Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations'

You can see the uncertainty range in the usual depictions, in grey eg here

The Moberg study includes this text:

"we find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last millennium with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period – in agreement with previous similar studies (1-4,7)”

where (1) is MBH98, (2) is MBH99 and (7) is Mann and Jones ’03.'

So the paper you cite proves my point actually in the text. Nice one.

Similarly D'Arrigo et al has in the abstract

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century

recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, 

(albeit with substantial caveats)

Not looking good is it?

There is a site that indexes many of them, it is quite a long list by now, organized by region.

But you can't bring yourself to provide a link. There are indeed proxies that show a warm regional MWP, but it is not homogenous, the peaks are sometimes centuries apart, and other proxies show cool conditions, eg when it was warm in Greenland it was cooler in Canada and parts of North America. Unlike contemporary warming which is pretty much global.

Sanger et al is regional, the hockey stick studies covered the Northern hemisphere. So my position that a global or NH temperature reconstruction that falls outside the uncertainty intervals of the Mann/Bradley/Hughes studies from 1998/99, aka the Hockey Stick does not exist still stands.

It anyone is 'wrong, so wrong' it is not Dr Mann. Here's the abstract from Mann et al 2008, which also remains the case:

Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. 

There is a site that indexes many of them, it is quite a long list by now, organized by region.

But you can't bring yourself to provide a link.

Direct link to the main page is:
Medieval Warm Period Project

But of course that is where those averages are coming from as I explained in this section, which does contain links to that site:

There is a site that indexes many of them, it is quite a long list by now, organized by region.
And although all of these show MWP (and LIA), some (majority) show MWP warmer than CWP , some show MWP colder than CWP.
The average for MWP-CWP is about 0.7 deg C, see MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials
For level 2 studies & qualitative differences see MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials: About 100 studies show MWP>CWP, 20 MWP=CWP and less than 10 CWP>MWP

I prepared but forgot to include that link to main page, but you should have landed there when you clicked any of the other ones.

It remains the fact that Mann et.al. made MWP disappear and all those 100+ references have a MWP around approximately the same time (with large overlaps), across the globe.

the peaks are sometimes centuries apart

other proxies show cool conditions, eg when it was warm in Greenland it was cooler in Canada and parts of North America.

And let's not forget that Mann et.al. 1998 has been essentially debunked by McIntyre & McKitrick (Energy & Environment (E&E), 2003; https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf, GRL 2005a (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf) and E&E 2005b (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf).
One of the interesting issues with Mann (etal) statistical approach is bound to find spurious hockey sticks, and yes even in random data. So it can't invalidate all the other studies.

And yes several of those other studies contain caveats to make the results seem less in total contradiction with Mann etal, but then they needed to do this in order to get published...
Most climate scientists still do not dare to speak or publish too much outside of the official party line.

That site that I refer to is the home of the MWP Project. I do advice you to read it.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/description.php
MWP Project Overview

What is it?
Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.

Why is it?
The project's reason for being derives from the claim of many scientists -- and essentially all of the world's radical environmentalists -- that earth's near-surface air temperature over the last few decades was higher than it has been during any similar period of the past millennium or more. This claim is of utmost importance to these climate alarmists; for it allows them to further claim there is something unnatural about recent and possibly ongoing warming, which allows them to claim that the warming has its origins in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which allows them to claim that if humanity will abandon the burning of fossil fuels, we can slow and ultimately stop the warming of the modern era and thereby save the planet's fragile ecosystems from being destroyed by catastrophic climate changes that they claim will otherwise drive a goodly percentage of earth's plants and animals to extinction. Since these are serious contentions, we feel that their underlying basis must be rigorously tested with real-world data.

Mar 9, 2018 at 12:45 PM | JayJay

The Hockey Team have made a tactical substitution of one Phil Clarke for another overnight, much as the Hockey Stick has relied on tactical substitutions of one data set for another, over time.

I am a firm believer in dendrochronology for dating bits of wood. I am dubious about dendrothermometry, and the influence of D'Arrigo and Jacoby has not always helped

You can see the uncertainty range in the usual depictions, in grey eg here

Yes that (https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm) does show a grey range.
If that is the properly reported uncertainty range than this should be the 2 SD range (by standard convention).

The issue is that most of the level 1 studies of that MWPP list have averages which are ABOVE the CWP and thus also ABOVE the outer range of the grey area. Same for the average across all level 1 studies in the MWPP list.
That simply means that the distributions are not the same, they are distinct,as it is not enough for their 2 SD ranges to overlap.
When either of the averages is outside the 2 SD range of the other (and we know this to be the case for the MWPP average versus the Mann'98 range), then this is evidence that these don't represent the same underlying distribution, i.e. there is statistical significant disagreement. Yet there should not be.

Indeed although some allow for the possibility that the CWP is equal or even slightly higher than MWP, this is sufficient evidence that there is clear disagreement between Mann et.al. 1998 and the MWPP list of studies.
So to say 'in agreement with previous similar studies' (or similar words) is really stretching things.

golf charlie:

I am a firm believer in dendrochronology for dating bits of wood. I am dubious about dendrothermometry, and the influence of D'Arrigo and Jacoby has not always helped

Oh I agree. The issue with all those tree-rings studies is that they fall into this group of studies that does selection of data subsets to use, based upon statistical techniques targeted at some outcome, as I explained. That is always a very dangerous thing to do.
Pre-selection of data always lowers the statistical power of the result, and when done in the direction of some preferred outcome (yes even correspondence with temperature record of modern age) this becomes even more of an issue.

At best one can describe why one discards some data on other grounds, but one should never use a statistical test against a part of the targeted outcome for (pre)selection of data sets which are used to prove that targeted outcome.

Same issue with some of the more modern studies (on either side of the divide I'm afraid).
Hence I also do not prefer wood for these kind of purposes.

Golf Charlie

Let me give two sailing examples of using a mental model to analyse how the world works.

One year at the Irish GP14 Nationals the course required two beats upwind between two islands. On the first beat the fleet kept to the left. The UK champion kept to the right and gained ground.

On the second beat the fleet remembered that first beat and went right. The UK champion went left and gained ground.

In the bar afterwards he explained that on the first beat he expected and got a lift from the trees on the right deflecting the wind. Second time around, the wind had shifted five degrees and he inferred that he would get a lift from the trees on the left. He was not intrinsically faster than the rest of us, but his mental model of the conditions was better.

In a club race the course required a broad reach between two marks with an island blocking the way. We all had to go downwind of the island, avoiding the calm patch in its lee and then bearing up to the mark. The fleet followed the edge of the calm patch. I realised that the calm air was wedge shaped and that I could go ten yards into the calm patch without losing wind. Cutting the corner I went from 8th to 4th in 200 yards.

My mental model of the climate system is basically thermodynamic. I visualise energy flowing into the climate system, down the entropy gradient and back out into space. Within the system energy flow is influenced by local physics. Various structures such as the ocean and atmosphere act as reservoirs. Temperatures are a measure of the local energy content and energy is conserved. If the energy levels in the reservoirs are changing, and hence temperatures, look for the cause in changes in the energy flow.

JayJay, Phil Clarke

You are showing why evidence tennis between consensus and sceptic players is ultimately futile.

Phil serves a peer-reviewed paper which JayJay regards as an unreliable source. jayJAy therefore discounts it

JayJay replies with a quote from CO2 science.org which Phil Clarke regards as an unreliable source. Phil therefore discounts it.

How can you play the game when you cannot even agree on the existence of the ball?

Entropic man

You are showing why evidence tennis between consensus and sceptic players is ultimately futile.

Phil serves a peer-reviewed paper which JayJay regards as an unreliable source. jayJAy therefore discounts it

JayJay replies with a quote from CO2 science.org which Phil Clarke regards as an unreliable source. Phil therefore discounts it.

How can you play the game when you cannot even agree on the existence of the ball?

Nice one :)
I get what you mean and yeah that is certainly an issue.
How would you propose to solve that?

But I need to correct you where you say: "JayJay replies with a quote from CO2 science.org which Phil Clarke regards as an unreliable source."
That site simply indexes 100+ peer-reviewed papers that show the existence of the MWP, with more added every year. So it is not just some quote on some skeptic website.

And sure the owner of that site does conclude something on that basis, but we can check & draw our own conclusions. I checked many of the papers and I couldn't find any serious faults, so I kind of agree with the sentiment of that site.

So it is more like:
"JayJay replies with a list off 100+ peer-reviewed papers (a list from CO2 science.org)"
+
"Phil Clarke regards CO2 science.org as an unreliable source."

But then: how does not liking a certain website disprove any of the peer-reviewed papers that happen to be listed there?
Guilt by Association?

So perhaps also (or better):
+ "Phil Clarke regards the two quoted papers as not (really) in disagreement, because that is what the authors themselves indicate

As that is always good to point out. Hence my reply that there really is significant disagreement between those papers, and that the authors have other reasons to be rather circumspect ...

Also:
Phil serves a peer-reviewed paper which JayJay regards as an unreliable source. jayJAy therefore discounts it
It is more than that, I point out that others have disagreed with it on IMHO good grounds and I point out that the basic approach used is dangerous and leads to inconclusive results (to say the least).

So while I agree that we are getting nowhere, I do not see the error of my ways.

Mar 9, 2018 at 1:20 PM | JayJay

Because I had witnessed the success of dendrochronology, I was initially convinced by dendrothermometry ......... !

EM: "My mental model of the climate system is basically thermodynamic. I visualise energy flowing into the climate system, down the entropy gradient and back out into space. Within the system energy flow is influenced by local physics. Various structures such as the ocean and atmosphere act as reservoirs. Temperatures are a measure of the local energy content and energy is conserved. If the energy levels in the reservoirs are changing, and hence temperatures, look for the cause in changes in the energy flow."

Commendable, really. The difference between us is what we imagine the energy is doing. As I may have mentioned somewhere in these 1500+ comments is the ephemeral nature of the energy intercepted by CO2. I think it takes another couple of milliseconds to find its way off the planet, you think it sits in the sea, or something. I think the additional energy from additional CO2 is trivial in the circumstances of the high activity areas and times which dominate energy flow. I think a little higher minimum temps at night or in winter make little difference. I can see for myself that nothing much is happening despite claims of extra hurricanes to dissolving starfish.

Mar 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM | Entropic man

I have sailed in tidal and non tidal waters. In light winds especially, knowledge of local conditions is far more useful than a weather forecast. I am not a racing sailor, but even at Club Level yacht racing all sorts of data can be fed into a handheld Smartphone to produce instructions on course to steer, what to do if the wind shifts etc etc. Local knowledge based on previous experience will normally win, as in the case you describe.

The "telemetry" being fed into the race engineer of a Formula 1 Team far exceeds the data gathering and processing skills of the driver, but it is the driver who has to make instant decisions, through the seat of his pants, to overtake, swerve, brake etc. Wet conditions in F1 are a great leveller of technology, allowing drivers to demonstrate their skills and gut instinct.

The onset of rain DURING a Formula 1 Race, does make everything more exciting and dangerous, for all. Rain spotters were used, rainfall radar is now available, but the Teams still use helicopters, as some circuits and particular weather conditions are prone to thundery and localised storms that may leave the pit lane dry, but the bendy bits awash with water.

A racing yacht needs to know what the wind and weather is doing now, and what it will be doing over the following hour, day or week in the area it will be heading.

A Formula 1 Team needs to know what the weather is doing now, and the next 10 minutes over an area of a square mile.

A weather forecast is helpful to a yacht. Formula 1 needs a weather Nowcast. Weather models can do neither.

Climate models have not produced any results that have benefitted anyone, if anything, the opposite. If a a computer model is fed garbage information to be processed by garbage algorithms, it is of no use. That is where Climate Science is stuck.

I do understand your point that more heat equals more energy, and therefore more potential for something to happen. I just don't see any evidence of it having occurred in a manner it didn't do before.

Climate Science remains stuck within its own hermetically sealed bubble, refusing to look or go ouside.

How can you play the game when you cannot even agree on the existence of the ball?

Mar 9, 2018 at 2:16 PM | Entropic man

It is Climate Science that has corrupted the Peer Reviewed process of Science.

If you, and the rest of Climate Science still cannot see this, what choice are you offering Trump?

I have suggested to you before that now would be a good time to jettison all the junk, and try and save the good bits.

Surely there are some good bits?

I can see for myself that nothing much is happening despite claims of extra hurricanes to dissolving starfish.

Mar 9, 2018 at 3:59 PM | rhoda

Via a less scientific route, I have ended up with the same conclusion.

The energy balance/imbalance, if it exists, is wrong. There are more "unknowns", or the magic formulae use incorrect numbers, or both, plus more errors.

Climate Science has never had a financial interest in correcting its own mistakes, so actually admitting any of them is unheard of.

Entropic Man and Phil Clarke, do you have a list of Climate Science's admitted mistakes, papers voluntarily retracted etc? Trying to claim that Climate Science has "moved on" from the Hockey Stick is somewhat inadequate given the £billion$ wasted as a result of this fabricated conclusion.

JayJay

I've seen that list and looked at some of the papers.Regrettably they do not constitute the body of evidence for the MWP that the website claims.

If you were new to this propoganda game I would remind you that such an assemblage is known as a Gish Gallop.

Entropic man:

I've seen that list and looked at some of the papers.Regrettably they do not constitute the body of evidence for the MWP that the website claims.

Oh and why not? Something wrong with all those papers? Some of them? Something else?

If you were new to this propoganda game I would remind you that such an assemblage is known as a Gish Gallop.

? propaganda, I thought we were discussing GHG theory?
You know we argue the matter from opposing viewpoints and discuss points of logic and evidence...

"Gish Gallop" I have to look up, will get back to you on that one.

Meanwhile could you detail your objections to some of those papers. I guess several of these should already to be known to you (?)..
Once you have done so, I can probably sort out all of them. That would take me a few days at least I'm sure. Or perhaps a wee bit more time :)

Mar 9, 2018 at 8:32 PM | Entropic man

Still the same arrogance that Mann has always displayed.

Would you object if "Gish Gallop" was applied to all of Climate Science as it is binned as worthless scrap?

Mar 9, 2018 at 8:32 PM | Entropic man

Please enlighten us all. What is wrong in Climate Science, and how does Climate Science intend to fix it?