Apr 8, 2018 at 5:13 AM | clipe

Integrity doesn't pay very well in Climate Science.

You tell us what made you state that Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick.

I never stated that. In fact several times I pointed out that as the original Hockey Stick was Northern Hemisphere and Gergis Australasia, it never could.

What I actually stated was that Gergis joins a long list of reconstructions that conclude modern warmth is anomalous.

What I actually stated was that Gergis joins a long list of reconstructions that conclude modern warmth is anomalous.
Apr 8, 2018 at 9:21 AM | Phil Clarke

.... and they all use:

"... repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues."
Comment by S. McIntyre on the Spectator blog, after Melanie Phillips went nuts.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/26/unthreaded-n/
Apr 7, 2018 at 10:04 PM | Phil Clarke

You don't want to defend errors in ECS?

Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke

Why did you type the first paragraph? Would you like to retract it, even if Climate Science won't?

In your second paragraph, which bits are you relying on now, that are not covered by McIntyre's "highly questionable proxy studies"?

Do you remain satisfied that Gergis did correct her previous debacle, and that it was appropriately Peer Reviewed?

It just proves that Peer Reviewed Climate Science has become devalued. If it wasn't for the likes of McIntyre, who would have known, because Climate Science's Expert Peer Reviewers could not find anything wrong.

As Climate Science selects its own Peer Reviewers, Scott Pruitt might aswell instruct those independent of the 97% Consensus to re-review key Climate Science papers, using Harvey et al 2017 as a reference guide.

Apr 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM | Radical Rodent

They certainly did not get welcomed back at the IPCC.

Presumably the IPCC did not bother to check Mann's Hockey Stick because their own in-house experts had already Peer Reviewed it.

I have been suggesting for a few years that Climate Science should get honest about the non recyclable rubbish that needs to be landfilled, so that the good bits won't be thrown out at the same time.

If Scientsts such as Curry and Lewis are more accurate about estimating ECS than the Consensus, then they would be obvious people to be involved with reviewing the Junk Science that the EPA has thrived on. This would not be binding on any publications, journals or professional bodies in the USA, let alone the EU or UK, but it would assist US cashflow decisions towards the UN's IPCC and Climate Science in general.

There s no reason to suppose that Lewis, Curry etc would want to be consultants to the EPA, but an invitation would go some way to recognising their honesty and integrity.

Radical rodent

I see no reason to expect another Carrington event on Tuesday. Not like you to be alarmist.

Golf Charlie

There will be no red team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/climate/pruitt-red-team-climate-debate-kelly.html

Apr 8, 2018 at 8:14 PM | Entropic man

As Climate Science has never consented to any debate before, that should speed up the process.

Entropic,

Would that be the Scott Pruitt who rents a room from an Energy Industry lobbyist at a fraction of the market rate?

Drain the Swamp!

Apr 8, 2018 at 11:51 PM | Phil Clarke

Thus saving US Taxpayers money, not ripping them off.

Meanwhile $1.63million disappears from NASA GISS.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/06/nasa-giss-gets-slammed-in-inspector-general-report-for-questionable-1-63-million-of-giss-expenditures-since-2012/

"We also found multiple instances of unallowable use of NASA-appropriated funds by GISS employees, grant recipients, and contractors for salary expenses, sub-contracting, and computer equipment. Based on our review of these unallowable expenses, improper charges under GISS’ support contract, and the improper use of purchase cards, we question $1.63 million of GISS’ expenditures since 2012."

Is NASA-GISS Pruitt's budget to cut?

The condo, in which Pruitt rented a bedroom for $50 a night, has attracted the attention of the EPA’s inspector general, which said Thursday it was considering opening an investigation. The agency is already reviewing Pruitt’s taxpayer-funded first-class travel, his use of a special hiring authority to grant raises to aides and his spending on a soundproof phone booth for his office.

Drain the Swamp!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/pruitt-was-the-kato-kaelin-of-capitol-hill-505658

Phil Clarke goes ad hom, shock horror, film at ten.

Phil Clarke goes ad hom, shock horror, film at ten.

Apr 9, 2018 at 1:17 PM | rhoda

Because he can't accept that guesstimates of ECS have been too high, which would confirm that Taxpayers don't need to fund 97% of Climate Scientists .

Climate Science targetting Pruitt now, does seem "courageous", or is it just desperate?

Apr 9, 2018 at 1:12 PM | Phil Clarke

How much money have Climate Scientists conned out of US Taxpayers already? Just deleting 50% of Climate Science will save billion$.

Golf charlie

"Thus saving US Taxpayers money, not ripping them off."

The head of the EPA is supposed to pay for residential accomodation in Washington from salary, rather than from his agency budget.

By getting a cheap flat from a lobbyist he is not saving taxpayers' money, but is opening himself to charges of corruption.

What he is doing is breaking the emoluments rule, which requires public servants to avoid anything which might be interpreted as bribery.

Oh yes, logical fallacy. You cannot excuse one person's improper behaviour by by alleging improper behaviour elsewhere.

Phil Clarke, do you think Pruitt may now have access to the EPA's undisclosed E-Mails and correspondence relating to ClimateGate, "CO2 is a Pollutant", "EXXON Knew", Shukla's RICO 20 fiasco, and other corruptions of Science for Political means?

https://www.livescience.com/17151-climategate-emails-michael-mann.html
Climate Scientist Calls Hacked 'Climategate' Emails 'Truly Pathetic'
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | November 22, 2011 02:21pm ET

"Climate scientist Michael Mann blasted the release of new leaked emails and documents taken from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit as "truly pathetic" and a "shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy" on Tuesday (Nov. 22)"

"Mann, along with other prominent climate scientists, features in the emails, which consists of conversations among researchers about data and public relations. A previous leak in 2009 released more than 1,000 emails in an episode dubbed "Climategate." According to the University of East Anglia (UEA), the current data dump, if genuine, appears to be culled from emails taken at the same time as the original Climategate documents."

"Climate-change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is. Multiple investigations by UEA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, several independent panels and Mann's home institution, Pennsylvania State University, found no evidence that these claims were true. The House of Commons did criticize the scientists and UEA for not releasing raw data and for handling freedom-of-information requests poorly. A 2011 parliamentary report concluded that it was time to "move on" from Climategate."

Meanwhile, in your own words, tell us all more about ECS and why observations are wrong and theory is right? As a Country Bumpkin, I go with observations beating unproven/failed theory.

Oh yes, logical fallacy. You cannot excuse one person's improper behaviour by by alleging improper behaviour elsewhere.

Apr 9, 2018 at 2:23 PM | Entropic man

So what are you and Phil Clarke doing?
(apart from avoiding ECS)

I go with observations beating unproven/failed theory.

Which observations?

Apr 9, 2018 at 4:42 PM | Phil Clarke

The lack of warming.

Still not interested in ECS, as one of many possible errors in Global Warming Theory?

Golf Charlie

What lack of warming? We are up 1C since 1880, 0.8C since 1970 and 0.3C since 2010.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Study the data, rather than taking the word of WUWT, NoTricksZone, NALOPKT and other unreliable sources.

One of the hardest things to do is to go beyond the pseudoscience sites that tell you what you want to hear, to the data which tells you need to know. Judging from your posts, retired engineers like yourself find accepting reality particularly difficult

Golf charlie

!look at the graph.

That is a warming rate of 0.7C/decade over the 138 years.

It is a warming rate of 0.17C/decade since the current warming trend began in 1970.

It is a warming trend of 0.38C/decade over the last eight years since 2010.

No warming, you say? Bullshit; that is not just a warming trend, it is an ACCELERATING warming trend.

You are just too blinded by your denialist opinions to see it.

Here we analyse how estimates of ECS change as observations accumulate over time and estimate the contribution of potential causes to the hiatus. We find that including observations over the hiatus reduces the most likely value for ECS from 2.8 °C to 2.5 °C, but that the lower bound of the 90% range remains stable around 2 °C. We also find that the hiatus is primarily attributable to El Niño/Southern Oscillation-related variability and reduced solar forcing

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2573

Golf Charlie

Typo.

That should be

"That is a warming rate of 0.07C/decade over the 138 years."